Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ID'ing the Torsos

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ID'ing the Torsos

    Thought this would be a good place to discuss all the people that were suspected of being a fit for the torso victims. I know a lot of people came forward for their loved ones, but they were proven to be safe and sound. This lady is a new one on me, so I'll start the thread with her.

    Lloyd's Weekly, August 21st, 1887 (referring to Rainham torso)


  • #2
    Mornington Crescent remains reconsidered?

    On December 6, 1884 the police had changed their opinion on something apparently as far as ID,ing the parts of the Tottenham torso.



    Then the following day they were trying to get permission from the Home Secretary to exhume the Mornington Crescent parts that were stated to be from another body. The parts proved to be too difficult to exhume due to the fact that 50 papupers had been buried since these remains were buried.(see last paragraph of the following article)



    Then the next day the conclusion of the inquest stated the Mornington Crescent parts (right arm; right and left foot; and right forearm) were from another body. Wonder if it was due to the trouble in exhuming them that they went with Dr. Jenkins initial opinion? Leaves the door open a little that maybe the Mornington Crescent parts belonged to the Tottenham body? That or they may have also thought now that we have another body (Tottenham), which we didn't know about when the Morning Crescent parts were found, we might not just have a medical student dissection (MC parts), but another murder altogether.

    Comment


    • #3
      Nice idea, Jerry.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
        Thought this would be a good place to discuss all the people that were suspected of being a fit for the torso victims. I know a lot of people came forward for their loved ones, but they were proven to be safe and sound. This lady is a new one on me, so I'll start the thread with her.

        Lloyd's Weekly, August 21st, 1887 (referring to Rainham torso)

        This is a new one on me too, Jerry. Good find.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
          Nice idea, Jerry.
          Thanks Gary.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
            This is a new one on me too, Jerry. Good find.
            Debs,

            Almost seems they went to the police about their daughter (re:Rainham torso) and they may have told her to file a missing persons report in the paper first. I can't find a follow up to this one, unfortunately.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
              Debs,

              Almost seems they went to the police about their daughter (re:Rainham torso) and they may have told her to file a missing persons report in the paper first. I can't find a follow up to this one, unfortunately.
              Jerry, what was the one you posted a few months back where the mother was told she only had a couple of days to ID the body for the last time before burial as she hadn't the heart to do it previously she was so convinced it would be her daughter?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                Jerry, what was the one you posted a few months back where the mother was told she only had a couple of days to ID the body for the last time before burial as she hadn't the heart to do it previously she was so convinced it would be her daughter?
                I vaguely remember it. I will look through my clippings to see if I can find it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Debs,

                  Are you sure the article came from me? I can't find it in any of my stuff.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                    Debs,

                    Are you sure the article came from me? I can't find it in any of my stuff.
                    I thought it did, Jerry. I'll have a google and see if I can see where it was posted. Maybe it was How who posted it if it wasn't you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Debs,

                      One thing I failed to mention in my OP is that clip regarding Esther Bishop was in a section of the paper that was begging for information on lost relatives. A missing persons report, so to speak. Most of these reports I have seen in the past seem to be actual letters or communication to the paper from the interested party/parties of the missing loved one. I say this because of the wording in the report, "she is supposed to be the person whose mutilated remains...", seems to indicate the family had been to the police already and were desperately trying to make sure it wasn't their daughter. This wasn't the press speculating that she may have been the Rainham torso, in other words.

                      Along those lines, I have been scouring these missing persons reports, lately, to see if something crops up on other possible matches for the torso's. Sometimes the families give detailed descriptions of clothing last seen on the person, i.e purses, rings, skirts, colored bodice, hats etc.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why?

                        After seeing this clip, I was wondering why Woking was chosen as the final resting place for the Whitehall victim? Was that the closest cemetery? Seems to be rather distant?


                        People
                        London, United Kingdom
                        Sunday, 4 November 1888


                        WHITEHALL MYSTERY - FUNERAL OF THE VICTIM.
                        The remains of the unknown female that were found recently at Whitehall were interred at Woking on Tuesday by the parish authorities, the order for burial having been handed over to Inspector Marshall, who was in charge of the case. The remains, consisting of the trunk, arm, and leg, were removed from the mortuary in Millbank street, Westminster, where they have been lying to await identification, to Wallis's Yard Workhouse, and placed in a coffin before being conveyed to their final resting place. Among the person who called at the mortuary was an old woman, who thought she recognised in the photograph which has been taken of the remains some trace of her daughter who has been missing since August, but she could not be positive upon the point.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Regarding Emily Barker (possible Pinchin torso):

                          It seems the facts aren't adding up. The police seem to give one story but the medical examinations another. The parents of Emily didn't arrive in London to speak to detectives until the latter part of September, 1889. I believe around the 30th or so. When they did speak to them they described Emily, as others did also, as short, dark and plump. Mrs. Barker stated she hand made a chemise for Emily and that she had a peculiar mark on her right finger. This was on the 30th.

                          Yet on September 14th, the press got a leak from the authorities that the identity would be soon due to a peculiar mark on the right finger of the victim. This is a good 2 weeks before they even spoke to the Barkers.



                          When the Barkers arrived around the 30th of September and insisted the body was that of their daughter they were told the dead woman was taller (5'8") and that no mark was found on the finger in the official description of the trunk. The police said the frame of the body didn't match with a plump girl.

                          Dr. Clarkes description of the body:

                          On re-examining it there I found the body appeared to be that of a woman of stoutish build, dark complexion, about 5ft. 3in. in height,

                          This seems to match Emily perfectly. Short, dark and plump.



                          Coincidentally, on September 14, 1889, a bloody chemise was found in a parcel floating down the river near Charing Cross.

                          Lloyds Weekly Newspaper
                          Sunday, September 15, 1889, London, Middlesex




                          The Great Chemise Switcheroo?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I forgot to add Dr. Hebberts notes from "A System of Legal Medicine" regarding the Pinchin torso.



                            Peculiar mark on the right hand finger?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                              Regarding Emily Barker (possible Pinchin torso):

                              It seems the facts aren't adding up. The police seem to give one story but the medical examinations another. The parents of Emily didn't arrive in London to speak to detectives until the latter part of September, 1889. I believe around the 30th or so. When they did speak to them they described Emily, as others did also, as short, dark and plump. Mrs. Barker stated she hand made a chemise for Emily and that she had a peculiar mark on her right finger. This was on the 30th.

                              Yet on September 14th, the press got a leak from the authorities that the identity would be soon due to a peculiar mark on the right finger of the victim. This is a good 2 weeks before they even spoke to the Barkers.



                              When the Barkers arrived around the 30th of September and insisted the body was that of their daughter they were told the dead woman was taller (5'8") and that no mark was found on the finger in the official description of the trunk. The police said the frame of the body didn't match with a plump girl.

                              Dr. Clarkes description of the body:

                              On re-examining it there I found the body appeared to be that of a woman of stoutish build, dark complexion, about 5ft. 3in. in height,

                              This seems to match Emily perfectly. Short, dark and plump.



                              Coincidentally, on September 14, 1889, a bloody chemise was found in a parcel floating down the river near Charing Cross.

                              Lloyds Weekly Newspaper
                              Sunday, September 15, 1889, London, Middlesex




                              The Great Chemise Switcheroo?
                              Jerry,

                              Emily Barker was said to be 4ft 10 1/2 and was badly pockmarked. An Emily Barker of that description, born Northampton, 1864, was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for larceny at the Northampton Sessions on 7/1/1898.

                              Gary

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X