| Author |
Message |
    
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 136
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 3:11 am: | 
|
Thank you very much AP
I am reading through the reports now.
Debra |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4079
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Hi AP,
As you know, I am often in tune with most of your ideas, but I fail to understand you on this matter.
I don't see any evidence on MJK:s body indicating he tried to dismember her for practical reasons. Her body is mutilated and fileted. Her killer's point was obviously to carve off the flesh from her body, not cutting off the limbs for disposal. After such severe mutilations there would be very little point in dismembering.
Again - if he wanted to, he apparently would have had enough time to do so. This can not be empathised enough. The crime scene doesn't reveal any attempts to get rid of the body in any way.
Why would the killer try to dismember and get rid of the body when that part of the room ended up in such a blood bath? He would have several hours cut out for him just cleaning up the mess!
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Yes, Glenn, I can understand your confusion about my stance on this matter, and I am forced to almost entirely agree with you that the mutilations carried out MJK were inflicted out of a desire to mutilate rather than dispose of the victim.
The crime scene we see in her room certainly suggests that, very strongly… but, and it is a big ‘but’, we now have a case of disposal mutilation where the flesh of the victim was cut away from various parts of the body; and many other mutilating injuries inflicted which were totally unnecessary to the disposal motive.
Somehow when I read the reports concerning MJK’s mutilations I find myself on the road to a disposal motive. It might be a dead end but I’ll drive down it and see.
Hopefully within a very short time, I should be better placed to make comparisons between the death of MJK and these numerous other mutilated corpses that seem to be increasing on a daily basis… and I’m sure that Debra will eventually have something to say on the subject as well. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 412
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
If he was on the road to disposal, then why did he not remove the head or limbs? As I've said earlier, he had the time. Also, I don't really see the point of disposal. It couldn't have been to cover the crime. He would have had to take up the baseboards and floor boards to get all of the mess cleaned up and that would have taken days.
If he was the torso killer, this was not his first murder so he would have known what he was doing by now.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4082
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
"Also, I don't really see the point of disposal. It couldn't have been to cover the crime. He would have had to take up the baseboards and floor boards to get all of the mess cleaned up and that would have taken days."
Exactly, Stan. This is what I meant earlier.
The point of disposal of a body is to cover up the crime, and in Miller's Court we see no indication of such attempts. On the contrary, if he wanted to cover up the crime, he made a pretty good mess of it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 413
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Yes, and that's not to mention the problem of getting rid of the mattress.
Stan |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
"The point of disposal of a body is to cover up the crime,"
I'd agree, except what are we to make of the torso dumped on the construction site for the New Scotland Yard ? I'd argue that not only did the killer want it found, he was thumbing his nose at the police.
Obviously this torso might not be connected with the other torsos (somehow this phrase sounds odd..) and of course may not have anything to do with JtR.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Good and valid points chaps, but I think two ways here when it comes to disposal, one way is the physical disposal of the victim - let’s say in the Thames - the other way is the complete and utter disposal of a victim’s identity.
It is here that I see a common ground between the Thames Torso murder of 1873 and the killing of MJK.
This follows a course, firstly the victim’s identity is disposed off and then the victim herself.
My belief is that whoever killed MJK was attempting to remove her identity… which leads me to conclude that disposal of the victim was the next logical step.
But as I said, it might be a dead-end. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 414
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Maybe I've missed it so does anyone know if the autopsies on the torso victims mention a retraction of the neck muscles or tendons? If not, then that would mean that the cause of death was not due to a cutting of the throat as was the indication in the C5. In other words, it would prove that the decapitaion began after death.
Stan
(Message edited by Sreid on October 01, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
I see where you're coming from, A.P. But the biggest problem I have with this is that MJK's killer created one heck of a mess for himself with respect to subsequent disposal. He had as much time as he needed - which raises interesting questions in and of itself - and could have parceled her up in whatever fashion he fancied.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 137
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi all
I have to admit after re-reading this thread several times that I can see the practical problems that the killer of MJK would have encountered if his intentions were disposal of the body.What was always at the back of my mind however was that the killer of MJK had another means of disposal available to him, and that was the fire, but quite rightly it has been pointed out that he probably had the time to dispose of the body if he wished and didn't.
The 1873 case ( which AP drew our attention to month's ago on another thread but we all ignored!) is a very interesting one for the fact that the killer there inflicted almost the exact same mutilations to the face of the victim as were inflicted on MJK, in the 1873 case the face and scalp were actually removed from the head, (which was also separated from the body and never found), an attempt had been made to cut off the nose and also remove the eyebrow and chin,and severe mutilation seems to have gone on in the pelvic region. This definitely seems to be a case of 'mix and match' murder, mutilation and disposal, and it makes me wonder what were the motives behind MJK's facial mutilations?...and there must have been a point where this disposal killer faced the same mess as was made in MJK's room.
I am sure there is something to be learned from looking at these cases...but not entirely sure what!
Stan
The doctors stated that they could not ascertain the cause of death in any of the cases apart from the Pinchin street torso.
Debra
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 415
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
I would have to assume then that, if they could not determine the cause of death, the neck muscles and tendons connected to them were not retracted. From this they couldn't determine what the cause of death was but they could determine what it wasn't and that would be that it wasn't a cut throat.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5095
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
It seems to me a natural thing that the killer would move up to facial mutilation (Eddowes) and then facial destruction (Kelly).
The following may be entirely subjective, but I have a feeling that doodling was going on : that he doodled on Eddowes's face, and carried on with Kelly. Of course, if a child is only allowed one piece of paper to doodle on, that piece of paper will get in a hell of a mess every time he rubs it out to start again.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4083
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
Yes, I did notice that thread and I find these examples of other murders very important for the JtR context because they show that domestic murders can be just as horrific as those committed by serial killers, and they also reveal that grotesque murders of this kind were a reality already before and around the time of the East End murders.
And I think AP has done a wonderful job by digging those up. What AP:s efforts has told us, is that the old notion that no murders in East End occurred the years prior to the Ripper murders is incorrect and a myth.
I don't know much about the 1873 case, but since the head was missing one can only reach two conclusions:
a) he wanted it as a souvenir
b) he wanted to hide the victim's identity (which would have been a very effective method in 1873, since no DNA or dental records could be used for identification).
So yes, although we can only guess a killer's intentions, it do seems like a matter of 'mix and match'.
However, as far as MJK is concerned, we have problems to face.
In contrast to the 1873 case, no limbs were actually missing from the body of Mary Kelly. She was mutilated but she was found with the limbs attached to the body and in her own room and with no apparent signs in the room of any kind of attempt to hide the body.
As for the point of mutilations of the face could be an attempt of hiding the victim's identity - yes! We have an eminent example with the case of Dr. Buck Ruxton in the 1930s, who did a similar thing to his wife's face (and his housekeeper's, I believe) as the killer in 1873.
However, destroying of a face - dehumanisation - can also be a result of personal and emotional trauma on the killer's part and indicate a close relation to the victim. So it doesn't necessarily have to be an attempt to hide a victim's identity and this should be remembered in the context of MJK. We know of a number of such cases.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
The input here is impressive.
And my thanks to everyone.
I think my essential problem here is buried in the fact that in cases of murder where the identity of the victim has been so savagely mutilated as to be unrecognisable, the victim is then always dismembered and dumped, usually in a river.
The case that Glenn floats is a classic example.
Two types of avoidance are being practised in such crimes, the avoidance of identification and the avoidance of guilt by connection.
I would be very interested in any cases of such murder where severe identity mutilation has occurred without the body becoming a dumped torso.
And here I specifically speak of facial mutilation.
The 1873 case which Debra has highlighted for us here is indeed a lesson; and if I may add to it… the victim’s eyes had also been cut out, and she had been scalped and then the skin had been forcibly peeled off her skull.
Personally I don’t think the killer of MJK had the sort of time that everyone talks about here, the mutilations tell me that he was working against the clock; and yes, Debra, the fire.
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 417
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
I agree Robert, I think he was just finishing the job he didn't have time to do on Eddowes; the attack on the nose being the key.
Stan |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
"Personally I don’t think the killer of MJK had the sort of time that everyone talks about here, "
I'm curious as to why you believe this, AP. I don't think JtR necessarily thought he had limitless time, but he seems to have done what he set out to do in terms of creating a vignette for the ages.
As an aside, one problem with the mutilations as a way of hiding the victim's identity: it's a bit moot when the body is left in the victim's home...big clue as to who the body might be !
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 418
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Someone mentioned a while back that no one considers Elizabeth Jackson a Ripper victim. I have a book called The Book of Lists which does list her as one of their ten victims. Myself, I do not concur but I thought I'd mention this.
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4084
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
AP,
"...the fact that in cases of murder where the identity of the victim has been so savagely mutilated as to be unrecognisable, the victim is then always dismembered and dumped, usually in a river."
That is not so at all, AP.
I have no idea why you say this. Yes, this is correct in some cases, but there certainly exists loads of cases where the bodies of such mutilations have NOT been subject of dismembering or disposal.
Stan,
I am sure you can find people out there who believed or believe that Elisabeth Jackson was a Ripper victim. But then again, some believe everything.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Malso
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
these torso murders could still be the Ripper though, i.e these were women he knew very well; he therefore had to hide their identities...but mutilated bodies can still be identified can't they!
but i doubt these are the Rippers though, this is another serial killer at work! |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
You see where others might see a fully developed crime scene in MJK’s room after the killer had departed - supposedly satisfied with the completion of his strange work - I see a negative that awaits development… an interrupted crime scene if you like, where the killer has been disturbed at some stage and fled.
I also think we talk very narrow time frames in this murder, with a wealth of witness testimony to examine and explore those very narrow time frames… various conclusions can be reached with little effort, but the conclusion I reach comes hard, and that is the killer probably only had one and a half hours to complete the task he had set himself, and then simply ran out of time.
He had to be out of there before morning prayers, and he had to be out of there before men began harnessing horses in the road, and he had to be out of there before the lags and whores dragged themselves out of bed at six to get their first pint of gin or ale at the Ten Bells.
Looking at the murder scene, I am not impressed by the argument that it would have taken the killer many hours to clean up the crime scene, the mass of evidence was on the bed or nearby… everything thrown together on the bed, bundled up, tied with rope, thrown into hand cart, small pool of blood by bed to clean up, minor splashes on wall… ten minutes then I’m off to market with my cart, stopping at the Ten Bells for a pint on the way. After pint, sling lot in Thames.
Trouble is he couldn’t do that, as he still had a body on his hands and not a torso.
I’m still very much in the process of studying all this anew, and there is much in the evidence to comment upon.
As a for instance what are we to make of Dr Bond’s statement that the areas of MJK’s neck where her throat was cut showed evidence of ‘ecchymosis‘?
Surely this is an indicator of strangulation or hanging?
Glenn
I am talking about victims with mutilations as severe as MJK and the Torso victims. Not the Richard Chase type of mutilation.
So a few cases please of similar mutilation without torso disposal. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 419
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
OK AP,
How about Herman Mudgett aka H.H. Holmes who totally defleshed one of his girlfriends? He later profited by selling her skeleton to a medical school.
Best regards,
Stan |
rodney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 1:02 am: |
|
Murders,beatings,robbery,and crimes in general were rampant back then as they are(sadly)today.Rather than be thrown off-track on a wild-goose chase,instead the focus should stay on the accepted known victims of JTR,because it's hard enough to even remotely come to any general consensus as it is.
For the record though,it's fair to say that the Torso murders bear no resemblance to the Ripper murders according to those most involved in the investigations and research,past and present. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Thank you Stan.
More please. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 420
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Shirley Collins' head was smashed to a pulp near Melbourne in 1953 and Leopold and Loeb corroded Bobby Franks' face with acid near Chicago in 1924. Not the same types of mutilation but extreme mutilation none the less.
Stan |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Wild geese have wings.
‘It will be remembered that last year, while the Whitechapel miscreant was in the full living of unchecked crime, a horribly mutilated human body was discovered in the basement store of the building on the Embankment once intended for a national opera house. Here too, the head and legs were missing, as in the case of the unfortunate women found yesterday morning, but in this case the incomplete mutilation of the trunk had been completed in a fashion absolutely similar to that which marked the bodies of the Whitechapel victims.’
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Come on Stan
Holmes was producing murder like Henry Ford was producing model T's.
'Buried in the floor, the police found a huge vat of corrosive acid and two quicklime pits, which were capable of devouring an entire body in a matter of hours.'
You know we ain't talking the same subject here. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 421
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Gee AP, you're hard to get along with. You won't find any murder exactly like any of the Ripper murders or any other slaying, for that matter.
Stan |
Malso
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
``However, as far as MJK is concerned, we have problems to face.
In contrast to the 1873 case, no limbs were actually missing from the body of Mary Kelly. She was mutilated but she was found with the limbs attached to the body and in her own room and with no apparent signs in the room of any kind of attempt to hide the body.
As for the point of mutilations of the face could be an attempt of hiding the victim's identity - yes! We have an eminent example with the case of Dr. Buck Ruxton in the 1930s, who did a similar thing to his wife's face (and his housekeeper's, I believe) as the killer in 1873.
However, destroying of a face - dehumanisation - can also be a result of personal and emotional trauma on the killer's part and indicate a close relation to the victim. So it doesn't necessarily have to be an attempt to hide a victim's identity and this should be remembered in the context of MJK. We know of a number of such cases.``
hi Glenn
Mal the Ripper here, hiding her identity would take more than mutilating her face; it would need her head, arms and legs to be removed too, because any close friend could recognise these body parts and they did!...plus this body wasn't dumped in different localities, but found at home...so i agree with you.
this is a totally different murder to those Torsos, as are all the other Ripper mutilations.
because the torso murders are about hiding the victims' identity; and also without the Ripper style mutilations, but the Ripper didn't give a damn who knew the victim and his goal was organ removal/disembolment and toying with his knife like a 10 year old child!
no, these murders are someone else and maybe the bloke that killed some of the other women too!
it's a right mess isn't it!
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
"!...plus this body wasn't dumped in different localities, but found at home.."
Let's be blunt - this is a key point in considering if the mutilations had as their aim the hiding of the victim's identity. Someone butchered MJK in her own room...it doesn't matter if he did a torso job, or chopped her into mince meat....it was virtually certain that someone would put the site and MJK going missing together and conclude she was the victim.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2616
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Well, Sir Robert, let's be even more blunt then.
Even though MJK was murdered and butchered in her own room we still today do not know who the killer was.
Now stretch that just a little bit more.
We would be even more in the dark if the killer had managed to dismember the body and sling it in the Thames.
Then the body might have been MJK.
That's a big difference.
It is just as well to remember that in each and everyone of the Torso murders, dozens of witnesses turned up who claimed the body was a dear relative of theirs who had recently gone missing; and even today final closure on the victims' true identity is open to question.
Malso
we can go up and down these snakes and ladders for the next twenty years if you like, but try rolling a dice that says a killer can have an interrupted motive; and then we might have a realistic view of such crimes.
I accept absolutely and completely that the mutilation of MJK was not of a disposal nature, but I do not accept the fact that the killer did not have this in mind when he started out. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 427
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Mrs. Crippen was fileted. They didn't find enough to tell if she was disarticulated or not.
I'm not getting much help here.
Stan |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
I could probably help you, Stan.
But I just sort of know that everything you and Glenn come up with will have clear and proven motive for the crime.
This is what is lacking in the Whitechapel & Torso Murders.
Bodies all over the place, but no motive, and no killer.
Try Florence. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 429
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
The Monster of? I don't remember much facial mutilation there.
The motive could be for the "fun of it" which was Mudgett's primary.
Stan |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 430
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Or Florence Polillo of Cleveland Torso Slayer fame? Her head was never found.
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4104
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
AP,
I am not so sure of that the murder of MJK lacks motive. Just for the record...
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
AP--You're delving into a wilderness where few would dare to go, and I admire your courage. I, too, see a similarity, although it may be an acasual one, rather than a direct one. I'm fairly convinced Elizabeth Jackson was a victim of a botched abortion, for instance; but even here, the Ripper victims seem to me to be a parody of a botched abortion. (Your may recall the grizly fact that when Jackson's body started showing up in parcels, they found an extra liver...never identified, of course). The most annoying thing about your theory, however, is that it is so damn difficult to disprove. What if Kelly had been the victim of an illegal operation? She's plainly dying, so the mad medico cuts her throat before the sun comes up. (This is not so far-fetched; I know of a case where a victim of a similar botched abortion was thrown bound and mangled --but still very much alive-- in the Detroit River). There is then an attempt to cut off the legs and head...which fail. Not the femur. In a panic, they burn the more incriminating evidence in the fireplace, and disfigure the corpse to look like a Ripper victim. In other words, they hide the thimble in plain sight rather than in the Thames. Barnett meets the mad midwife. Technically, it fits all the evidence, and isn't disproveable on strictly logical grounds. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
The Edgeware Road Torso Murder of 1836.
This is an absolute belter of a case where for once we are able to follow the motive, purpose and method behind the killing and mutilation.
The killer, Greenacre, carried the head with him, wrapped in silk hankys on crowded omnibuses all round London, sometimes in his coat but also perched on his cap before finally flinging it in the Regent’s Canal.
The full details are available in the ‘Chronicles of Newgate’ published in 1884.
If Robert is not too busy ‘jobbing’ he might kindly find it for us?
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 887
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.
The Greenacre case is actually quite a famous one. James Greenacre, a grocer, had married one Hannah Brown on Christmas Eve, thinking that she was wealthy. It turned out that Hannah thought James was wealthy. There was an argument and Hannah was killed (James always maintained it was an accident - but if one reads his full biography in the old Dictionary of National Biography, there was at least one previous wife who died from mistreatment). Greenacre had a girl friend, and they planned to flee to the U.S. First they got rid of the corpse, cutting it up and depositing portions of it around London (the head ended up in the Regent's Canal, but still turned up). When the body parts were identified as Hannah's, Greenacre and his girlfriend were arrested (the night before they were to board the ship for American). Greenacre was found guilty and hanged in 1837, and his girlfriend, Sarah Gale, was transported to Austrlia.
Goodacre later boasted that he was a party to Arthur Thistlewood's Cato Street Plot. He was also the platform chairman for Dennis Whitley Harvey (future head of the City Police) when Harvey ran for Parliament from Southwark. He was a curious man, and their was extensive public interest in Goodacre in 1837 that mirrored the contemporary interest in France to Laceniare. Like the latter Goodacre even wrote an autobiography.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Thanks for that Jeff
what caught my interest is that Greenacre dumped his torso on a new building site on the Edgeware Road and it was found by a bricklayer.
Remember New Scotland Yard?
Surely his partner in the crime was his cleaning lady rather than girlfriend?
Sort of an Elizabeth Stride. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Actually RJ,
When they were putting the mangled jig saw together that was formerly Elizabeth Jackson they did find the entire corpse of a newly born male child, but dismissed it as unconnected.
There is much drama to the idea of a botched abortion and I could probably line you up fifty cases which could lend credence to such thought. The Old Bailey was full of charlatan butchers who murdered housemaids and the like impregnated by their superior employers; and the back privies were full of their murdered children.
You couldn’t sit on a toilet in the LVP without finding a murdered child.
Courage?
Thank you. But I believe the word is fortitude.
I’m staying in the privy till the job is done.
Your kind words, much appreciated.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5111
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Hi AP
There's so much of it. Which bits do you want me to lop off?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
Sorry, Robert, the bit I read was only a couple of small pages.
I'll go back and get it up again and then get back to you. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
It’s always nice to find some official linkage between a Torso Murder victim and a Whitechapel Murder victim:
The Pinchin Torso Inquest:
‘Dr. Phillips, recalled, said there was not such a similarity between the manner in which the limbs were severed in this and in the Dorset-street murder, to convince him that both crimes were the work of one man, but the division of the neck,, and the attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine were very similar in each case.’
And from the New York Herald, London Edition, September 11, 1889:
‘The same peculiarity was observed in the other wounds, and in separating the legs more flesh had been cut from the trunk on the left side than on the other. In more than one of the previous crimes this peculiarity has been observed and commented upon.’
|
rodney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Stan
Or O.J.Simpson of Bronco fame.He darn near sliced their heads clear off.He was never convicted.
say what??? |
Malso
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
``I accept absolutely and completely that the mutilation of MJK was not of a disposal nature, but I do not accept the fact that the killer did not have this in mind when he started out.``
yes ok i'll accept this, but now look at it this way, she lived in a tightly enclosed Court with nosey neighbours all around (nightime means nothing, it's still busy)...how's he going to dispose of her body parts in busy Millers court/dorset st, it would take about 4 trips back and forth to remove her body parts and where will he dump these, he'll need a cart outside etc..because he cant walk back and forth up and down dorset st with body parts...NO WAY! too many police on patrol etc.
or he could alternatively, carry her body out in one piece and dump it on a cart outside, big problem here; he runs the risk of being seen, plus a dead body (dead weight) is very hard to lift and carry on your own, i know; i do this for a living.
plus one other minor point, there was no cart outside (from what we know); so this killer was not intending to take her body away anyway! because to take her body away on a cart, is the only way to do this...however risky this appears!
any killer would've known all of this before hand, therefore i say; this was not the torso killer; but the ripper instead. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Malso
There were carts, and horses outside.
See the inquest testimony of Elizabeth Prater.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5125
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
AP, is this what you meant?
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Thanks so much, Robert, the very one.
Recommended reading for all. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 892
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.
Some defenses never fail to die, even when they are initially rejected. Eighty seven years after Greenacre claimed that Hannah fell down in their fight, and hit her head and died, Patrick Mahon (in the "Crumbles Bungalow" Murder of 1924) claimed his girlfriend (Violet Kaye) hit her head in falling down, and died. Like Greenacre he panicked and cut up the dead body. It did not work for Greenacre in 1837, nor for Mahon in 1924, and a variation did not work for John Robinson (for the murder of Minna Bonati) in 1928. It is very hard to explain to a jury a logical, legal reason for dismembering a body!
Which makes it easy to believe those torso murder victims were all murder victims indeed!
Best wishes,
Jeff Bloomfield |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Thanks Jeff
valuable information to stoke the guns.
Much appreciated.
Much like you I do believe most of these torso killings were blatant murder, just because one of the victims may have been pregnant at the time of death does not detract from that view, in fact I feel it honestly increases the risk of murder, rather than a botched abortion I see a genuine desire to kill a person to simply get them out of the way.
And then avoid the consequences of that action, which most of them did. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.,
I see how extensive this thread has become. Maybe it should be transferred to the section "THE SHADOW OF WHITECHAPEL" with other noted homicides. What do you think?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
I'm happy with that, Jeff.
No worries.
Plenty more to come. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page