Torso Chronology & Implications for the Ripper

[The Rookie Detective]

Looking again at the Chronology of the series and how that may impact the broader picture; there is an article that I just revisited from my notes on the Whitehall case. It's an article that has been analyzed before, but I wanted to re-highlight it; because I feel there's more to it.

The following article you may or may not be familiar with, but regardless I will share it so that my post is in context.

It is a story that was initially printed on Monday 8th October, which incidentally was the same day as the opening of the inquest into the death of the Whitehall victim.

However, the paper clipping attached below is from the 13th October.

It related to an incident that occurred on a Tramcar on the Saturday 15th September and involved a man carrying a parcel that emitted a stench.

This incident happened 4 days after the discovery of the victim's arm in Pimlico on the 11th September

Note the description of the man...

The tramcar was heading north/northeast from Vauxhall Station up to London Bridge, possibly passing directly past the Doulton's building in Lambeth after leaving Vauxhall Station. (The back of Doultons being the dumping site of the 1902 Lambeth Torso victim)

The man left the tramcar just after passing the St George's Circus Obelisk, one of the main junctions/terminus for Tramcars and such like.

By exiting the Tramcar at the Obelisk, he had multiple routes available, one of which being directly over the Westminster bridge to the west and then to the site of the NSY vault.

Here is the incident for those who may be unfamiliar...



We know the exact date this occurred from the 8th October press releases and so this was AFTER the arm had been found.

Was this man carrying the victim's head in the box?

I think there's a chance he was.

Also, note the term "Retreating form of the man"

This implies that the witness was heading north to London Bridge but had to leave the tramcar early due to the stench, and when seeing the policeman as he headed north, he pointed back towards the man carrying the parcel who must have been going in a direction away from London Bridge.

Towards the NSY vault is possible.

It would appear that the only direction that we know the man with the parcel wasn't travelling, was towards London Bridge, ergo , the witness who spoke tot he policeman and the man with the parcel were going in different directions.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

Just on a couple of points, the site had roughly 100 men per day working in a busy, noisy environment (and remember there was also a steam engine there until it blew up the day after the initial discovery). In addition to the on-site workers there was another stream of visitors; carmen, structural advisors, artisan workers employed for key aspects of the building etc. We should also remember that the workmen employed there did not necessarily work throughout the entire project, for example if your specialist area was tiling, then you wouldn't be needed when there were only the foundations laid. This was a hectic set up and I don't believe you can exclude the possibility that someone brought the body in via a cart of some sort during the day. I do think it's plausible. But I would also say that the location of the vault is such that it is probable the person who deposited the remains there knew where to go. That however, does not mean it was an on-site worker - nor does it exclude them. Several of the workers who were called as witnesses clearly knew the location of the vault, as did the site managers who'd surveyed it in the previous week, but what is an unknown is the delivery men from off-site. We have no idea if they just dropped their deliveries off at a drop off point or if they took their wares to a specific place as per the instructions of the gaffers. So neither can be ruled out.

With regard to the newspaper dating, I think we need to step back a little. Victorians weren't* the same as our throwaway society now. Both newspapers could have been in the vicinity of the vault since their printing, alternatively they could have been brought in at a later date as part of some packaging. Alternatively they could have been just left there after reading, and not thrown away in case they were of use later on. Equally (!) they could have been brought into the vault with the body parts. There are a whole host of variables, and I think one of the most overlooked aspects of this case is not only did Smoker find the lower leg in the debris from the trench, but he also spotted something in another area of the vault but when they dug up the area, nothing was found. Now, this could be an error on the part of the dog, or it could be they didn't find another body part, or it could mean the body parts were being dug up and moved around. We simply don't know, and we can only hypothesise. From my point of view, there is very little you can hang your hat on when it comes to Whitehall, because everything is open to interpretation, and it would be fools errand to claim otherwise.

*edited typo

Hi NFS.


I agree with you completely on this.

I have recently learned a lesson on how to not hang my hat on anything concrete and to remain within the safer and more objective realm of hypothesis.

I am sorry I haven't replied to your post earlier, I am actively working on multiple threads at the same time and I am not the best at multitasking ha ha!


RD

[New Ford Shunt]

I quite agree. My apologies, as my post meant to add to your list, so it was actually directed at the Rookie Detective, since s/he argued the date of 24th August should be considered important.

Ahh makes sense now!

[Kattrup]

You've lost me? I stated in my post that the only thing the 24th August 1888 newspaper proves is that the body part that was wrapped in it could not have been wrapped in it any earlier than the 24th August 1888. The rest is open to interpretation. It's impossible for the body part to have been wrapped in it earlier than the 24th August 1888 as the newspaper did not exist at that point, but it doesn't demonstrate that the murder took place before or after that date, or that the body part was wrapped on the 24th August, just that it had to have been wrapped after then.

It's not a matter of putting an abitrary emphasis on just one of the newspapers, it's a matter of fact: it's impossible for the body part to have been wrapped in the newspaper before the 24th August 1888.

I quite agree. My apologies, as my post meant to add to your list, so it was actually directed at the Rookie Detective, since s/he argued the date of 24th August should be considered important.

[New Ford Shunt]

An excellent post and summary.

Regarding your first point on the latch system.

I agree that the latch system wasn't exclusive to the site, but that's beside the point. The fact it was used on the only entry point that could be accessed when the site was closed, is a detail that the killer must have been privy to prior to entering the site.
That said, I agree with you that the killer could have entered through the main entry gate on the Embankment, but this entrance wasn't open once the site was locked up for the day.
Regarding your 2nd point, your suggestion that the killer could have gone through the main entrance by proxy confirms that the killer was an individual who worked on the site for whatever reason and therefore could move around with relative anonymity.
The idea that a civilian could drive a cart through the main gate, then dump the torso and exit the same way without being seen or challenged, is more unlikely than the killer accessing the site when it was closed off to the public and the site deserted.
If the killer did go in through the main gate, then one of the men who conveniently found her is the killer, or at least complicit in the dumping of the torso.

The idea that she was murdered on site is an interesting one, and for me the same principle would apply in that the only way the victim could have been murdered on site, is if she went there of her own accord, ergo, went with her killer of her own accord when the site was closed.

Of course, the biggest implication of the victim being murdered and dismembered on site, is that the victim had been dead for anywhere up to 9 weeks!
That would strongly imply that the killer worked there and had murdered, dismembered and buried her on site...and all the while not being seen or heard by anyone whatsoever.

And to you last point; I agree that the date of 24th August is not proven. But the same could be applied to any other date within that timeframe.
The 24th of August does rock the chronological boat so to speak, but my question to you would be this...

If you believe the killer murdered her on site and then dismembered her on site... then how did newspaper dated the 24th August end up being found with her body?
I.e. If she was murdered on site in September, then how did newspaper from the 24th August end up in that cellar vault?

Furthermore, there was another piece of newspaper found with her, but this wasn't dated. The only remark from the publisher of that newspaper was that the paper was printed BEFORE 1888.
And so again, how did those pieces of newspaper end up with the torso victim if she had been killed on site?

I welcome your feedback and appreciate you taking the time to respond. Your post is brilliant and I support my posts being questioned and challenged, because that helps me to develop my understanding of the case.


RD

Hi RD,

Just on a couple of points, the site had roughly 100 men per day working in a busy, noisy environment (and remember there was also a steam engine there until it blew up the day after the initial discovery). In addition to the on-site workers there was another stream of visitors; carmen, structural advisors, artisan workers employed for key aspects of the building etc. We should also remember that the workmen employed there did not necessarily work throughout the entire project, for example if your specialist area was tiling, then you wouldn't be needed when there were only the foundations laid. This was a hectic set up and I don't believe you can exclude the possibility that someone brought the body in via a cart of some sort during the day. I do think it's plausible. But I would also say that the location of the vault is such that it is probable the person who deposited the remains there knew where to go. That however, does not mean it was an on-site worker - nor does it exclude them. Several of the workers who were called as witnesses clearly knew the location of the vault, as did the site managers who'd surveyed it in the previous week, but what is an unknown is the delivery men from off-site. We have no idea if they just dropped their deliveries off at a drop off point or if they took their wares to a specific place as per the instructions of the gaffers. So neither can be ruled out.

With regard to the newspaper dating, I think we need to step back a little. Victorians weren't* the same as our throwaway society now. Both newspapers could have been in the vicinity of the vault since their printing, alternatively they could have been brought in at a later date as part of some packaging. Alternatively they could have been just left there after reading, and not thrown away in case they were of use later on. Equally (!) they could have been brought into the vault with the body parts. There are a whole host of variables, and I think one of the most overlooked aspects of this case is not only did Smoker find the lower leg in the debris from the trench, but he also spotted something in another area of the vault but when they dug up the area, nothing was found. Now, this could be an error on the part of the dog, or it could be they didn't find another body part, or it could mean the body parts were being dug up and moved around. We simply don't know, and we can only hypothesise. From my point of view, there is very little you can hang your hat on when it comes to Whitehall, because everything is open to interpretation, and it would be fools errand to claim otherwise.

*edited typo

[New Ford Shunt]

There was another newspaper found and the only reason we don’t know the date is because by the time of the inquest, the police had not yet identified it.
The August 24th paper perhaps included a front page or the top of the page with the date, while the other paper did not, necessitating locating the right paper by going through three or six months’ papers to compare.
The point is that choosing to put emphasis on one paper only is arbitrary- it was just the only paper the police had got round to identifying.

Unless you want to argue that the august 24 paper was easier to identify by design of the dismemberer, which seems a difficult argument to make, seeing as we don’t know (as far as I recall) how the paper portions were.

You've lost me? I stated in my post that the only thing the 24th August 1888 newspaper proves is that the body part that was wrapped in it could not have been wrapped in it any earlier than the 24th August 1888. The rest is open to interpretation. It's impossible for the body part to have been wrapped in it earlier than the 24th August 1888 as the newspaper did not exist at that point, but it doesn't demonstrate that the murder took place before or after that date, or that the body part was wrapped on the 24th August, just that it had to have been wrapped after then.

It's not a matter of putting an abitrary emphasis on just one of the newspapers, it's a matter of fact: it's impossible for the body part to have been wrapped in the newspaper before the 24th August 1888.

[jerryd]

An excellent post and summary.

Regarding your first point on the latch system.

I agree that the latch system wasn't exclusive to the site, but that's beside the point. The fact it was used on the only entry point that could be accessed when the site was closed, is a detail that the killer must have been privy to prior to entering the site.
That said, I agree with you that the killer could have entered through the main entry gate on the Embankment, but this entrance wasn't open once the site was locked up for the day.
Regarding your 2nd point, your suggestion that the killer could have gone through the main entrance by proxy confirms that the killer was an individual who worked on the site for whatever reason and therefore could move around with relative anonymity.
The idea that a civilian could drive a cart through the main gate, then dump the torso and exit the same way without being seen or challenged, is more unlikely than the killer accessing the site when it was closed off to the public and the site deserted.
If the killer did go in through the main gate, then one of the men who conveniently found her is the killer, or at least complicit in the dumping of the torso.

The idea that she was murdered on site is an interesting one, and for me the same principle would apply in that the only way the victim could have been murdered on site, is if she went there of her own accord, ergo, went with her killer of her own accord when the site was closed.

Of course, the biggest implication of the victim being murdered and dismembered on site, is that the victim had been dead for anywhere up to 9 weeks!
That would strongly imply that the killer worked there and had murdered, dismembered and buried her on site...and all the while not being seen or heard by anyone whatsoever.

And to you last point; I agree that the date of 24th August is not proven. But the same could be applied to any other date within that timeframe.
The 24th of August does rock the chronological boat so to speak, but my question to you would be this...

If you believe the killer murdered her on site and then dismembered her on site... then how did newspaper dated the 24th August end up being found with her body?
I.e. If she was murdered on site in September, then how did newspaper from the 24th August end up in that cellar vault?

Furthermore, there was another piece of newspaper found with her, but this wasn't dated. The only remark from the publisher of that newspaper was that the paper was printed BEFORE 1888.
And so again, how did those pieces of newspaper end up with the torso victim if she had been killed on site?

I welcome your feedback and appreciate you taking the time to respond. Your post is brilliant and I support my posts being questioned and challenged, because that helps me to develop my understanding of the case.


RD

Regarding newspapers. John Arnold. Newspaper vendor, Charing Cross.

[The Rookie Detective]

You've clearly put a lot of work into your posts but a couple of points really need to be addressed:

1. The latch system. This was endemic throughout the capital. I would have difficulty in applying any weight to this in terms of theory because it just isn't unique enough to warrant any true emphasis.
2. You have assumed that the Whitehall torso was moved in the dead of night from the outside of the building site. Why? There were multitudinous carts and wagons going in and out of the site on a daily basis, via the main gate on Embankment. The main access point to the vault was from this entry road. It could easily have been this method from which the body was brought in. Alternatively, you assume the body was brought in, when she could well have been murdered on site (there were parts of a dress found and a ring), the body could have been dismembered and hidden in other parts of the site and then moved when necessary (remember Smoker the dog found scent elsewhere in the vault). In my view, and similar to the above point, we cannot place any emphasis on what may or may not have happened, because we don't have enough evidence one way or the other.
3. The date of the newspaper is signicant in one aspect only, namely that the body cannot have been wrapped in it any earlier than the 24th August 1888. Anything else is pure conjecture. It doesn't even tell us that she was murdered on that date, as it's possible the newspaper was several days old when used or, the victim had been murdered before the 24th August 1888 and was only wrapped in it on or after the 24th.

I don't wish to rain on your parade, but we need to avoid assumptions becoming de facto truths.

An excellent post and summary.

Regarding your first point on the latch system.

I agree that the latch system wasn't exclusive to the site, but that's beside the point. The fact it was used on the only entry point that could be accessed when the site was closed, is a detail that the killer must have been privy to prior to entering the site.
That said, I agree with you that the killer could have entered through the main entry gate on the Embankment, but this entrance wasn't open once the site was locked up for the day.
Regarding your 2nd point, your suggestion that the killer could have gone through the main entrance by proxy confirms that the killer was an individual who worked on the site for whatever reason and therefore could move around with relative anonymity.
The idea that a civilian could drive a cart through the main gate, then dump the torso and exit the same way without being seen or challenged, is more unlikely than the killer accessing the site when it was closed off to the public and the site deserted.
If the killer did go in through the main gate, then one of the men who conveniently found her is the killer, or at least complicit in the dumping of the torso.

The idea that she was murdered on site is an interesting one, and for me the same principle would apply in that the only way the victim could have been murdered on site, is if she went there of her own accord, ergo, went with her killer of her own accord when the site was closed.

Of course, the biggest implication of the victim being murdered and dismembered on site, is that the victim had been dead for anywhere up to 9 weeks!
That would strongly imply that the killer worked there and had murdered, dismembered and buried her on site...and all the while not being seen or heard by anyone whatsoever.

And to you last point; I agree that the date of 24th August is not proven. But the same could be applied to any other date within that timeframe.
The 24th of August does rock the chronological boat so to speak, but my question to you would be this...

If you believe the killer murdered her on site and then dismembered her on site... then how did newspaper dated the 24th August end up being found with her body?
I.e. If she was murdered on site in September, then how did newspaper from the 24th August end up in that cellar vault?

Furthermore, there was another piece of newspaper found with her, but this wasn't dated. The only remark from the publisher of that newspaper was that the paper was printed BEFORE 1888.
And so again, how did those pieces of newspaper end up with the torso victim if she had been killed on site?

I welcome your feedback and appreciate you taking the time to respond. Your post is brilliant and I support my posts being questioned and challenged, because that helps me to develop my understanding of the case.


RD

[Kattrup]

• The date of the newspaper is signicant in one aspect only, namely that the body cannot have been wrapped in it any earlier than the 24th August 1888. Anything else is pure conjecture. It doesn't even tell us that she was murdered on that date, as it's possible the newspaper was several days old when used or, the victim had been murdered before the 24th August 1888 and was only wrapped in it on or after the 24th.

There was another newspaper found and the only reason we don’t know the date is because by the time of the inquest, the police had not yet identified it.
The August 24th paper perhaps included a front page or the top of the page with the date, while the other paper did not, necessitating locating the right paper by going through three or six months’ papers to compare.
The point is that choosing to put emphasis on one paper only is arbitrary- it was just the only paper the police had got round to identifying.

Unless you want to argue that the august 24 paper was easier to identify by design of the dismemberer, which seems a difficult argument to make, seeing as we don’t know (as far as I recall) how the paper portions were.

[New Ford Shunt]

You've clearly put a lot of work into your posts but a couple of points really need to be addressed:

1. The latch system. This was endemic throughout the capital. I would have difficulty in applying any weight to this in terms of theory because it just isn't unique enough to warrant any true emphasis.
2. You have assumed that the Whitehall torso was moved in the dead of night from the outside of the building site. Why? There were multitudinous carts and wagons going in and out of the site on a daily basis, via the main gate on Embankment. The main access point to the vault was from this entry road. It could easily have been this method from which the body was brought in. Alternatively, you assume the body was brought in, when she could well have been murdered on site (there were parts of a dress found and a ring), the body could have been dismembered and hidden in other parts of the site and then moved when necessary (remember Smoker the dog found scent elsewhere in the vault). In my view, and similar to the above point, we cannot place any emphasis on what may or may not have happened, because we don't have enough evidence one way or the other.
3. The date of the newspaper is signicant in one aspect only, namely that the body cannot have been wrapped in it any earlier than the 24th August 1888. Anything else is pure conjecture. It doesn't even tell us that she was murdered on that date, as it's possible the newspaper was several days old when used or, the victim had been murdered before the 24th August 1888 and was only wrapped in it on or after the 24th.

I don't wish to rain on your parade, but we need to avoid assumptions becoming de facto truths.

[The Rookie Detective]

hey RD
yes lots. thirty year span is no big deal, many serial killers have gone that long, and also taken huge gaps of time in between killing.however, im not inclined to think the 73, 74 torso cases are definitely torsoman, I lean to they were but not sold on that yet. IMHO my canon victims for tje torsoripper are the tottenham head, rainham, millwood, tabram, nichols, chapman, stride eddowes, whitehall, kelly, jackson mckenzie and pinchin. and noting similarities:

tottenham- head/ face mutilated like eddowes. head displayed in a very risky and public place.
rainham- vertical gash, parts displayed
millwood- first street attack, abdoman targeted, prostitute.
tabram- evidence of strangulation, skirt hiked up, abdoman, privates targeted. first fatal street attack.
c5- all prostitutes, chapman and kelly possible decapitation intended.
whitehall- overkill, displayed left in public place
jackson- prostitute, abdoman flesh removed in flaps like kelly and chapman. parts displayed.
mckenzie- prostitute, vertical gash left displayed
pinchin- end of definite torsoripper victims. vertical gash, left displayed in ripper territory.

so i agree with you that if the same man, the ripper kills, were when his chop shop and or cart was not available and had to kill on the street.been saying that for years. also perhaps liked the more notoriety tabram kill got and that fueled his street killings. im not ready to take it any further than that in terms of timings, accomplices etc. but i enjoy your theories and find them interesting.

In general I see a post mortem type serial killer who was fascinated what his cutting instruments could do to the female body and enjoyed the shock value of leaving parts/bodies in weird and public places.

keep up the good work.

Thank you for your comments and feedback Abby.

I concur with pretty much all you've said and your post is as always well balanced and thoughtful.

I have only just started when it comes to the possible links.
I believe I have found a connection between the Whitehall Torso and a torso found in 1902.

Still analysing and cross referencing data, but what I've found initially, could indicate that the Torso killer committed murders way into the 1900's.

Work in progress of course


RD

[Abby Normal]

continued from my initial post one...

Would a man who has already murdered, dismembered, and then chosen to move their victim days/weeks afterward to a location that poses a potentially high risk of capture; be the sort of person who wouldn't feel inclined to leave us a clue as to the date the deed was committed?

It's impossible to know for sure of course, but if the killer simply wanted to dispose of the body and conceal what he had done...then why did he choose to move her torso to the cellar; a location at which her body would most likely have been found?

Why not just dismember and dump all the body parts into the River?

I believe one of the fundamental reasons why the Torso killer chose to place various body parts from his multiple victims at different locations, and not just conceal his crimes by dumping the bodies in the river, is because he had the intent to display his work and wanted the victims to be discovered (though not identified like Jackson was)...just like the Ripper wanted his victims to be displayed and discovered.

For clarity, I am not saying that I believe the victims from both series of Ripper and Torso killings were displayed similarly in a physical sense, but that the intent to display, is something that possibly links both series; and hints that the Ripper and Torso killers had a similar underlying intention and mindset.

Due to this and various other similarities, it is perhaps an interesting idea to see how the series could link together in other ways.

Going back to my initial post on this thread...
The pieces of newspaper dated 24th August 1888 discovered with the Whitehall Torso, are a good starting point to try and see if there are any possible links between the chronological timeline of events from both sets of murders.

One of the biggest arguments that is given to rule out any viable link to the 2 sets of murders, comes from the idea that the killer wouldn't have either had or changed his M.O.
I can understand this idea to a point; because even professional criminal psychologists would likely suggest a killer is unlikely to change their M.O
However, concerning the Ripper and Torso cases, this ideological concept becomes somewhat misleading.
Theological Criminal Psychology and Practical Criminality can be very different, and the fact that serial killers can and have altered/adapted their M.O. is something that simply cannot be ignored in the context of the Ripper and Torso killings.

I would argue that the underlying intent of the killer; or their "end game" so to speak; far exceeds the argument that a killer is unlikely to change the way they kill someone.

So, let's look at the 24th August 1888...
IF the torso killer murdered and dismembered his victim on the 24th August 1888 and then deliberately placed pieces of a newspaper printed on that same date on the torso that he chose to subsequently move to the cellar of the construction site of the New Police building, then how does that date impact on the already established Ripper victims dates?

Well, it becomes very interesting indeed.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest a hypothesis that supports the idea that the Torso killer was also the Ripper. I know that this is a controversial area of discussion and that I am in the minority when it comes to suggesting such a link, but I feel it's important to flush this out and see where it leads...

The murder of Tabram on the 7th of August... the killer stabbed her 39 times, 38 times with 1 weapon and just once with another weapon... the M.O. of the killer wasn't representative of either the Ripper or the Torso killer...but someone did kill her. Was she a Ripper victim? The M.O certainly doesn't look like he did...and yet we still consider her, and correctly in my opinion.

Now here's where the Chronology gets very interesting...

The Torso killer murders and dismembers his victim on the 24th August... just over 2 weeks after the murder of Tabram...but more interestingly, just a week before the murder of Polly Nichols; the established 1st Canonical victim of the Ripper.

The 24th August sits nicely between the murders of Tabram and Nichols.
If this date is correct, then where did the killer murder his victim and more importantly, where did he store his victim?

Did the torso killer murder his victim just a week before Nichols was slain by the Ripper?

There's evidence to suggest that the Torso killer was dismembering victims years earlier, and so did the Ripper killings stem from the Torso killer having to adapt his M.O?


Here's the chronological timeline based on that hypothesis (FROM Tabram and not including ALL the potential victims before Tabram)

Tabram - 7th August - possibly 2 men involved

Whitehall Torso - 24th August 1888 - normal kill for him, but then something changes...

Torso killer needs/chooses to change his M.O because his workshop/private space is either compromised and/or he temporarily doesn't have access to his usual workshop/interior killing space.
Possibly due to a change of work/moving area.

Canonical 5 begins...

Nichols - 31st August - A relatively new M.O. for the killer (Torso and/or Ripper)- hence why the murder feels rushed/unfinished/disturbed.

Chapman - 8th September - Can't help at least trying to take her head off.

WVC get involved, constantly requesting monetary rewards from the government etc... - the "Ripper" case goes viral (in the modern sense of the word)
Pressure mounts and the Torso killer wants/needs to move the body he had dismembered back on the 24th of August.

On the evening of Saturday 29th September, he moves the body and dumps it in the cellar of New Scotland Yard... but he's riled up from having to move the body and sets his sights on killing.

He then travels from the Whitehall area to Mitre Square and butchers Eddowes in the early hours of 30th September.

But seeing as I believe that there may have been at least 2 men involved...an accomplice heads to Berner St and cuts Stride's throat (hence the lack of mutilation) as a ruse to distract from the fact they have just moved the torso to New Scotland Yard.

This is also in keeping with the pre-set-up "double event" based on the Ripper letters...Smoke and Mirrors to implicate a Jew etc...

Whitehall Torso moved & dumped - 29th September
Stride - 30th September - accomplice
Eddowes - 30th September - Ripper/Torso Killers
Whitehall Torso Discovered - 2nd October

After the Whitehall Torso is discovered the killer/s need to lay low...and so October passes without any new killings...

Kelly - 9th November - pent up and raging, the Ripper obliterates her face out of sheer rage that he hasn't been able to kill for over a month. - he also chooses an inside location and similar to Chapman, he tries but fails to take her head.

Rose Mylett - The pair are back in business with Mylett, but choose a location away from the norm to confuse and divert attention - testing the water kill

Unsure after the Mylett case, he/They take another break and refrain from killing again until the following year, beginning with Elizabeth Jackson on the 3rd June 1889

A clear alternation between Jackson, McKenzie, Pinchin St, Coles... and so on until at least 1902.


Ultimately, my hypothesis above is merely an attempt to look at things from a different angle.

When we look at the timing of the approximate placement of the Whitehall torso, with the double event, the timing is very interesting, because it does suggest that the Stride was murdered as a ruse to divert from the Whitehall case.

The question is...why move the torso and why between the 29th-30th September, the same time as the double event?

And where did the killer keep the torso for over a month? The killer needed a place to keep the body.

Even if the killer murdered the Whitehall victim later than the 24th August, even perhaps as late as the 9th of September, the killer STILL needed somewhere to keep the body before transferring it to Whitehall. That job would have almost certainly involved MORE THAN ONE MAN.

To conclude...there is another reason why I believe the 24th August is the correct date of the murder; a tantalizing clue that I have spotted regarding that particular date, but which I will omit for the time being, because it wouldn't be wise for me to put all my cards on the table at this juncture.


I do find it quite surprising that nobody seems to have highlighted that the Canonical 5 were all murdered BETWEEN Torso kills... On that basis, the Torso killer didn't change his M.O. permanently.
As a Navvy/Civil Engineer/Marble Mason/Stone Mason, he had to adapt accordingly, and the series of murders we label as the "Canonical 5," maybe just a small condensed phase that the Torso killer had to endure before he moved back to Jackson and so and so forth...

Perhaps Kelly was the final victim of the "Ripper," but the same man whose primary objective was to cut, dismember and display won through in the end, and he reverted to what he knew best after he butchered Kelly and failed to take her head.

The biggest irony being that his most infamous spell as the Ripper was just a pit-stop in his killing spree that lasted over 30 years.


Lots to ponder


RD

hey RD
yes lots. thirty year span is no big deal, many serial killers have gone that long, and also taken huge gaps of time in between killing.however, im not inclined to think the 73, 74 torso cases are definitely torsoman, I lean to they were but not sold on that yet. IMHO my canon victims for tje torsoripper are the tottenham head, rainham, millwood, tabram, nichols, chapman, stride eddowes, whitehall, kelly, jackson mckenzie and pinchin. and noting similarities:

tottenham- head/ face mutilated like eddowes. head displayed in a very risky and public place.
rainham- vertical gash, parts displayed
millwood- first street attack, abdoman targeted, prostitute.
tabram- evidence of strangulation, skirt hiked up, abdoman, privates targeted. first fatal street attack.
c5- all prostitutes, chapman and kelly possible decapitation intended.
whitehall- overkill, displayed left in public place
jackson- prostitute, abdoman flesh removed in flaps like kelly and chapman. parts displayed.
mckenzie- prostitute, vertical gash left displayed
pinchin- end of definite torsoripper victims. vertical gash, left displayed in ripper territory.

so i agree with you that if the same man, the ripper kills, were when his chop shop and or cart was not available and had to kill on the street.been saying that for years. also perhaps liked the more notoriety tabram kill got and that fueled his street killings. im not ready to take it any further than that in terms of timings, accomplices etc. but i enjoy your theories and find them interesting.

In general I see a post mortem type serial killer who was fascinated what his cutting instruments could do to the female body and enjoyed the shock value of leaving parts/bodies in weird and public places.

keep up the good work.

[The Rookie Detective]

continued from my initial post one...

Would a man who has already murdered, dismembered, and then chosen to move their victim days/weeks afterward to a location that poses a potentially high risk of capture; be the sort of person who wouldn't feel inclined to leave us a clue as to the date the deed was committed?

It's impossible to know for sure of course, but if the killer simply wanted to dispose of the body and conceal what he had done...then why did he choose to move her torso to the cellar; a location at which her body would most likely have been found?

Why not just dismember and dump all the body parts into the River?

I believe one of the fundamental reasons why the Torso killer chose to place various body parts from his multiple victims at different locations, and not just conceal his crimes by dumping the bodies in the river, is because he had the intent to display his work and wanted the victims to be discovered (though not identified like Jackson was)...just like the Ripper wanted his victims to be displayed and discovered.

For clarity, I am not saying that I believe the victims from both series of Ripper and Torso killings were displayed similarly in a physical sense, but that the intent to display, is something that possibly links both series; and hints that the Ripper and Torso killers had a similar underlying intention and mindset.

Due to this and various other similarities, it is perhaps an interesting idea to see how the series could link together in other ways.

Going back to my initial post on this thread...
The pieces of newspaper dated 24th August 1888 discovered with the Whitehall Torso, are a good starting point to try and see if there are any possible links between the chronological timeline of events from both sets of murders.

One of the biggest arguments that is given to rule out any viable link to the 2 sets of murders, comes from the idea that the killer wouldn't have either had or changed his M.O.
I can understand this idea to a point; because even professional criminal psychologists would likely suggest a killer is unlikely to change their M.O
However, concerning the Ripper and Torso cases, this ideological concept becomes somewhat misleading.
Theological Criminal Psychology and Practical Criminality can be very different, and the fact that serial killers can and have altered/adapted their M.O. is something that simply cannot be ignored in the context of the Ripper and Torso killings.

I would argue that the underlying intent of the killer; or their "end game" so to speak; far exceeds the argument that a killer is unlikely to change the way they kill someone.

So, let's look at the 24th August 1888...
IF the torso killer murdered and dismembered his victim on the 24th August 1888 and then deliberately placed pieces of a newspaper printed on that same date on the torso that he chose to subsequently move to the cellar of the construction site of the New Police building, then how does that date impact on the already established Ripper victims dates?

Well, it becomes very interesting indeed.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest a hypothesis that supports the idea that the Torso killer was also the Ripper. I know that this is a controversial area of discussion and that I am in the minority when it comes to suggesting such a link, but I feel it's important to flush this out and see where it leads...

The murder of Tabram on the 7th of August... the killer stabbed her 39 times, 38 times with 1 weapon and just once with another weapon... the M.O. of the killer wasn't representative of either the Ripper or the Torso killer...but someone did kill her. Was she a Ripper victim? The M.O certainly doesn't look like he did...and yet we still consider her, and correctly in my opinion.

Now here's where the Chronology gets very interesting...

The Torso killer murders and dismembers his victim on the 24th August... just over 2 weeks after the murder of Tabram...but more interestingly, just a week before the murder of Polly Nichols; the established 1st Canonical victim of the Ripper.

The 24th August sits nicely between the murders of Tabram and Nichols.
If this date is correct, then where did the killer murder his victim and more importantly, where did he store his victim?

Did the torso killer murder his victim just a week before Nichols was slain by the Ripper?

There's evidence to suggest that the Torso killer was dismembering victims years earlier, and so did the Ripper killings stem from the Torso killer having to adapt his M.O?


Here's the chronological timeline based on that hypothesis (FROM Tabram and not including ALL the potential victims before Tabram)

Tabram - 7th August - possibly 2 men involved

Whitehall Torso - 24th August 1888 - normal kill for him, but then something changes...

Torso killer needs/chooses to change his M.O because his workshop/private space is either compromised and/or he temporarily doesn't have access to his usual workshop/interior killing space.
Possibly due to a change of work/moving area.

Canonical 5 begins...

Nichols - 31st August - A relatively new M.O. for the killer (Torso and/or Ripper)- hence why the murder feels rushed/unfinished/disturbed.

Chapman - 8th September - Can't help at least trying to take her head off.

WVC get involved, constantly requesting monetary rewards from the government etc... - the "Ripper" case goes viral (in the modern sense of the word)
Pressure mounts and the Torso killer wants/needs to move the body he had dismembered back on the 24th of August.

On the evening of Saturday 29th September, he moves the body and dumps it in the cellar of New Scotland Yard... but he's riled up from having to move the body and sets his sights on killing.

He then travels from the Whitehall area to Mitre Square and butchers Eddowes in the early hours of 30th September.

But seeing as I believe that there may have been at least 2 men involved...an accomplice heads to Berner St and cuts Stride's throat (hence the lack of mutilation) as a ruse to distract from the fact they have just moved the torso to New Scotland Yard.

This is also in keeping with the pre-set-up "double event" based on the Ripper letters...Smoke and Mirrors to implicate a Jew etc...

Whitehall Torso moved & dumped - 29th September
Stride - 30th September - accomplice
Eddowes - 30th September - Ripper/Torso Killers
Whitehall Torso Discovered - 2nd October

After the Whitehall Torso is discovered the killer/s need to lay low...and so October passes without any new killings...

Kelly - 9th November - pent up and raging, the Ripper obliterates her face out of sheer rage that he hasn't been able to kill for over a month. - he also chooses an inside location and similar to Chapman, he tries but fails to take her head.

Rose Mylett - The pair are back in business with Mylett, but choose a location away from the norm to confuse and divert attention - testing the water kill

Unsure after the Mylett case, he/They take another break and refrain from killing again until the following year, beginning with Elizabeth Jackson on the 3rd June 1889

A clear alternation between Jackson, McKenzie, Pinchin St, Coles... and so on until at least 1902.


Ultimately, my hypothesis above is merely an attempt to look at things from a different angle.

When we look at the timing of the approximate placement of the Whitehall torso, with the double event, the timing is very interesting, because it does suggest that the Stride was murdered as a ruse to divert from the Whitehall case.

The question is...why move the torso and why between the 29th-30th September, the same time as the double event?

And where did the killer keep the torso for over a month? The killer needed a place to keep the body.

Even if the killer murdered the Whitehall victim later than the 24th August, even perhaps as late as the 9th of September, the killer STILL needed somewhere to keep the body before transferring it to Whitehall. That job would have almost certainly involved MORE THAN ONE MAN.

To conclude...there is another reason why I believe the 24th August is the correct date of the murder; a tantalizing clue that I have spotted regarding that particular date, but which I will omit for the time being, because it wouldn't be wise for me to put all my cards on the table at this juncture.


I do find it quite surprising that nobody seems to have highlighted that the Canonical 5 were all murdered BETWEEN Torso kills... On that basis, the Torso killer didn't change his M.O. permanently.
As a Navvy/Civil Engineer/Marble Mason/Stone Mason, he had to adapt accordingly, and the series of murders we label as the "Canonical 5," maybe just a small condensed phase that the Torso killer had to endure before he moved back to Jackson and so and so forth...

Perhaps Kelly was the final victim of the "Ripper," but the same man whose primary objective was to cut, dismember and display won through in the end, and he reverted to what he knew best after he butchered Kelly and failed to take her head.

The biggest irony being that his most infamous spell as the Ripper was just a pit-stop in his killing spree that lasted over 30 years.


Lots to ponder


RD

[Abby Normal]

one things for sure, is that torsoripper knew that basement of NSY very well. imho he was familiar with it because he was in it frequently and was probably a worker. this would explain the killer knowing the latch system and the maze of vaults where the torso was found.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi all


I have decided to begin an additional thread to complement and supplement the current thread of discussion; namely, "Jack the Ripper and the Torso Murders."

The reason for starting this additional thread should become self-explanatory as this thread progresses (fingers crossed)

I wanted to focus on a particular aspect of the Torso killings that I believe has certain implications for the Ripper series.

This thread aims to look at the COMBINED chronological timeline of both the Torso Killings and the Ripper killings; and try to delve a little deeper into the possibility that the 2 series of murders are linked.


So let's begin with the Whitehall Mystery...

Various body parts were found in different locations as we know.

However, the most critical find came in the recently constructed foundations of the New Scotland Yard building just a few yards from the Thames.

We know that the killer needed access to the site and that they would have needed to traverse a ditch to place the torso in its location of discovery. All of this in relative darkness, ergo, it would seem logically probable that the Torso killer had visited the site before he went there to place the torso, and knew the terrain.

We know that based on different viewpoints from various professionals at the time, the estimated date of death for the victim varied considerably from just a few days, all the way up to a couple of months (9 weeks)

There has been a difference of opinion that still runs even today and much of the so-called evidence is down partly to subjective interpretation depending on whom you side with.

Over the years, the Torso killings have in the main been focused on the locations and dates that each body part was found, from the many victims respectively.

But unlike the series of alleged Ripper killings; which can be based on the dates when each victim was found (Chapman TOD debate still agrees with the same date of death), the Torso killings cannot be determined in the same manner, or by the same principles.

And so we must look to try and determine the date each Torso victim was murdered in a different way.

We know almost certainly that Elizabeth Jackson was murdered between the night of the 3rd June and the early hours of the 4th June 1889, but this isn't based solely on the dates she was found, it is also based on the many independent witnesses who saw her talking with a man late on the 3rd June AND the combination of mathematical and scientific probability that she was deceased by the early hours of the 4th June, because that's the date that her first body part was discovered.

It would be fair to reason that in all probability, the killer hadn't intended for Jackson to be identified, and so it makes the witnesses who saw her talking with a man (who looked like a Navvy) even more significant.

Going back to the Whitehall Mystery; based on the evidence we do have, we can be fairly sure that the torso had been placed in the cellar at least 1 to 3 days prior to being discovered.

But it's not the date that the torso was placed that is the most significant point; it's the realization that the killer had to of moved the victim from a different location.

That may seem obvious, but just take a moment to think about the idea and potential implications of the fact that the killer moved the torso from another location to deliberately place the body in the cellar.

So why did the killer choose to do that?

And where did the killer move the torso from?

Did the killer want or need to move the body?

Why would a killer who needed to move a body they had dissected days, possibly weeks earlier, feel the need/urge to take the risk of placing the victim in a cellar into which access was particularly difficult? Why take that risk?

One important clue concerns the "latch" system that was in place on just 1 of the many access points to the interior of the construction site.

The site workers at the time used this particular point of access when the site was closed, owing to the other entrances being locked up and secure from intruders. There were no signs of a forced entry into the site, and so again, logical probability would determine that the killer used the same system, by entering the area by pulling the latch that was hidden to public view.

The killer knew of this entry system.

As an aside, Albert Bachert wrote a letter to the East London Advertiser that was printed on the 14th of September 1889.
In the letter, he refers to the Ripper murders and mentions something rather interesting...

"It is a curious fact that in all the places where these murders have occurred, the houses are such that any person can enter by pulling a string that lifts the latch."

Now in context, he was referring to his belief that the reason why the Ripper evaded capture is because the killer knew of a latch system in various locations, that he used as a form of temporary safe house to avoid detection just after killing.

But the choice of words is fascinating because I believe that Bachert was also talking about the Whitehall Mystery that occurred the year before in 1888.
Was Bachert making a connection between the Ripper and the Torso Killer?

If so, why?

The reason why his comments warrant further scrutiny; is because the only evidence of a "latch" having ever been used by a killer... was when the Torso killer accessed the cellar and placed the torso in the corner under the arch.

Interesting words from Bachert.

Now, back to the Whitehall mystery...

There is of course one tantalizing clue as to the date on which the Whitehall victim was killed, and one that I haven't observed being discussed.


There are multiple estimates from various professionals at the time, none of which seem to agree with each other.

The clue to the date comes in the form of pieces of newspaper that were found with the Whitehall torso.

There were pieces of newspaper from 2 different publications, but one of which has a date.

24th August 1888

I believe it's THIS date that the killer is trying to tell us the date on which he murdered his victim.

But why is this date significant?
And why would the torso be found with pieces of newspaper, one of which had a date?

Well, one could argue that it's just a coincidence and that the killer wasn't trying to tell us anything.

I disagree...and the reasons why I disagree I will explain in my next post...


RD