The Whitehall Mystery

[Rosella]

There were always Parish vestries in England and Wales, which were ecclesiastical. The London vestries connected with sewage, slum clearance, tunnels, bridges etc were civil committees in each Parish and were different. They came into being as a result of the passing of the Metropolitan Management Act of 1855.

That Act created the Metropolitan Board of Works (for London.) The committee members who administered the Board were appointed from the membership of these local vestries within London. The MBW got a bad scandalous reputation because of this practice, which led to a lot of corruption.

Largely because of the associated scandals, the Metropolitan Board of Works was abolished by the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888. The London County Council came into existence as a result of that Act, in March 1889. The London County Council then took over the responsibilities of the defunct Metropolitan Board of Works.

[John G]

There were always Parish vestries in England and Wales, which were ecclesiastical. The London vestries connected with sewage, slum clearance, tunnels, bridges etc were civil committees in each Parish and were different. They came into being as a result of the passing of the Metropolitan Management Act of 1855.

That Act created the Metropolitan Board of Works (for London.) The committee members who administered the Board were appointed from the membership of these local vestries within London. The MBW got a bad scandalous reputation because of this practice, which led to a lot of corruption.

Largely because of the associated scandals, the Metropolitan Board of Works was abolished by the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888. The London County Council came into existence as a result of that Act, in March 1889. The London County Council then took over the responsibilities of the defunct Metropolitan Board of Works.

Hi Rosella,

Of course, Greater London didn't exist prior to the creation of the LCC (the 32 boroughs which London is currently comprised of were divided into Middlesex, Kent, Surrey and Hertfordshire.) Following the introduction of county councils in 1889 Middlesex lost about 20% of its territory and a third of its population to the newly created London County Council (Middlesex was abolished altogether in 1965 and all but two of its remaining boroughs were transferred to the Greater London Council).

My understanding is that Tower Hamlets, which included Whitechapel,was part of Middlesex, at least until 1889. However, the south-east of the county, as a result of the 1855 act, was administered by the Metropolitan Board of Works until it's abolition. I wonder, did this include Whitechapel?

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rocky,

Mulshaw wasn't a sewer worker, he was a night watchman. His job was simply to make sure no one fell down the hole (or stole it).

Gary

Was there a crew working on/in/around the sewer that night ?

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
Many post back on this thread we were discussing the use of poisons and other noxious substances of pregnant women to either procure an abortion or some other illegal operation in relation to a pregnancy. In may of the case the doctors rules this out, despite not conducting any tests on the remains of the bodies.

You will recall that I questioned those conclusions by those doctors and had ever right to do so having regard to what we now know was at times nothing more than guesswork by Victorian doctors.

I did say that I would ask Dr Biggs to comment on this and I put to him a number of connected questions relative to this issue

The questions are set out below and following on is his collective answers

Questions have been raised surrounding deaths as a result of some of them being administered poisons or some other noxious substance to procure an abortion, which we know was quiet common back then via back street abortionists.

It appears that in most case the doctors were able to rule out either of these as a causes of death. So that begs the questions

How would they be able to rule that out at the post mortem stage?

If they had been poisoned what effect would it have on the body if the body had been in the river for some time, or had started to decompose having been hidden on land, would something be visible to the doctors which would conform poisons?

Can a case of poisoning in this way be detected by sight only? I know nowadays sample are sent for toxicology tests but way back then they didn't have that luxury.

Could it have been detected by them in 1888 or was it guesswork again?

Reply

"I think this is fairly quick to answer, although perhaps not satisfactorily! The short answer is that even today, with modern toxicological testing, we can’t rule everything out in every case. We certainly can’t exclude ‘poisons’ by sight alone, even before decomposition confuses things.

My cynical view is that they couldn’t / didn’t actually ‘rule out’ poisoning, but that they said it wasn’t poisoning (because they didn’t think it was), and they were believed because they were medical experts. Very few poisons actually leave visible signs, so you really have to do some form of laboratory testing to exclude poisoning… and back then they had very little available to them.

In my opinion, whilst I’m not trying to suggest that they did miss any toxicological causes of death, it is certainly possible that ‘poisoning’ (whether intentional or unintentional) by some substance or other could have been overlooked."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

The home office did employ analysts and during the Pinchin St case it was reported that the stomach contents of the Pinchin St torso would probably be submitted for analysis by Dr Stevenson. The doctors were looking for a cause of death and they reported that no traces of poison or organic disease were detected.

Dr Thomas Stevenson and Charles Meymott Tidy, Bachelor of Medicine, Master of surgery and Professor of Chemistry at the London Hospital (who wrote many medical jurisprudence and toxicology textbooks) were just two of the professionals employed as analysts by the Home Office and worked on criminal case which would include, I suspect, cases of criminal abortion. In fact in Sept 1888 Dr Tidy gave evidence of his chemical analysis of the internal organs of a woman suspected of being poisoned by a policeman.
As regards Administering noxious substances for procuring an abortion-the Pinchin St victim was not pregnant, nor had she given birth recently, in fact, the doctors concluded from the shape and size of her uterus she had probably never given birth so anyone administering a noxious substance to her would have been doing it to solely to kill her, there would be no other explanation.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs,

First off the Metropolitan Board of Works was only in existence under that name until March of 1889. Then it became known as the London County Council.

Vestries were set up to act in various parishes. The MBW from what I understand was commissioned by the City Corporation but the corporation had no control over them. I have a feeling the vestries were somewhat "rogue" agencies to act as they saw fit under the umbrella of the MBW.

Thanks, Jerry and thanks for the Fairclough information.

[Rosella]

Thank you John. I wonder!

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

The home office did employ analysts and during the Pinchin St case it was reported that the stomach contents of the Pinchin St torso would probably be submitted for analysis by Dr Stevenson. The doctors were looking for a cause of death and they reported that no traces of poison or organic disease were detected.

Dr Thomas Stevenson and Charles Meymott Tidy, Bachelor of Medicine, Master of surgery and Professor of Chemistry at the London Hospital (who wrote many medical jurisprudence and toxicology textbooks) were just two of the professionals employed as analysts by the Home Office and worked on criminal case which would include, I suspect, cases of criminal abortion. In fact in Sept 1888 Dr Tidy gave evidence of his chemical analysis of the internal organs of a woman suspected of being poisoned by a policeman.
As regards Administering noxious substances for procuring an abortion-the Pinchin St victim was not pregnant, nor had she given birth recently, in fact, the doctors concluded from the shape and size of her uterus she had probably never given birth so anyone administering a noxious substance to her would have been doing it to solely to kill her, there would be no other explanation.

Debs
I am not going to keep laboring the issues regarding these torsos. We both know that the causes of death cannot be positively established.

We both know that is is not beyond the realms of possibility that one or more could have been murdered.

Likewise one or more could have died as a result of being administered either lawfully or unlawfully a poison or some other noxious thing in connection with some back street procedure.

The point of my questions to Dr Biggs was to ascertain if poisions could easily have been detected back then. His answer is clearly no.

As you have said the Victorians did have analysts but there is no direct evidence to show that any examinations were carried out on the torso remains to search for poisons or toxins. In fact in one case, a doctor appears to go out on a limb and state that there were no poisons present simply by having sight of the remains, how reliable is that?

I am sure like me you are still happy to still refer to these as the Torso mysteries and I hope the handful of others on here who seem to want to keep linking them all to a serial killer will apply some common sense and also refer to them as the same. But I wont hold my breath on that one

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Thank you John. I wonder!

Yes, the history of the development of British local government is extremely complex!

[Debra A]

Debs
I am not going to keep laboring the issues regarding these torsos. We both know that the causes of death cannot be positively established.

We both know that is is not beyond the realms of possibility that one or more could have been murdered.

Likewise one or more could have died as a result of being administered either lawfully or unlawfully a poison or some other noxious thing in connection with some back street procedure.

The point of my questions to Dr Biggs was to ascertain if poisions could easily have been detected back then. His answer is clearly no.

As you have said the Victorians did have analysts but there is no direct evidence to show that any examinations were carried out on the torso remains to search for poisons or toxins. In fact in one case, a doctor appears to go out on a limb and state that there were no poisons present simply by having sight of the remains, how reliable is that?

I am sure like me you are still happy to still refer to these as the Torso mysteries and I hope the handful of others on here who seem to want to keep linking them all to a serial killer will apply some common sense and also refer to them as the same. But I wont hold my breath on that one

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, Dr Biggs simply said poisons could not be detected by eye because you, in your questions, have led him to believe that is the way poisoning was ruled out in these cases. I have cited a case where organs were chemically analysed for poisons in a suspicious death (and there are loads of others). I have no proof this happened with the torso cases but there is also no evidence it didn't happen either, Dr Stevenson probably going to analyse the stomach contents of the Pinchin St torso is reported in the papers.

I'm quite happy to read others thoughts about them and their ideas that they were a series.

[John G]

I would note that under English Law the felony murder rule, which applied prior to the Homicide Act, 1957, a felonious abortion would support a conviction for murder if a reasonable person would have contemplated that death was the likely result: see Rex v Lumley (1911); Regina v Whitmarsh (1898).

Thus, in R v Whitmarsh Bingham J gave the following direction to the jury: "I tell you as a matter of law, that if you are of the opinion that the girl died as a result of the prisoner's unlawful operation, he is guilty of murder." He then added a very limited gloss, which had the effect of marginally narrowing the rule: "I do not mean that there are not some cases where this rule of law is not applicable. There may be cases where death is so remote a contingency that no reasonable man could have taken it into his consideration...that would amount only to manslaughter."

[Trevor Marriott]

I would note that under English Law the felony murder rule, which applied prior to the Homicide Act, 1957, a felonious abortion would support a conviction for murder if a reasonable person would have contemplated that death was the likely result: see Rex v Lumley (1911); Regina v Whitmarsh (1898).

Thus, in R v Whitmarsh Bingham J gave the following direction to the jury: "I tell you as a matter of law, that if you are of the opinion that the girl died as a result of the prisoner's unlawful operation, he is guilty of murder." He then added a very limited gloss, which had the effect of marginally narrowing the rule: "I do not mean that there are not some cases where this rule of law is not applicable. There may be cases where death is so remote a contingency that no reasonable man could have taken it into his consideration...that would amount only to manslaughter."

Murder or manslaughter both serious criminal offences

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[RockySullivan]

Trevor do you have any plausible explanation for why the torso "dumper" would deposit the torso with buried leg inside the whitehall vault? Or how for that matter? Why would the "dumper" leave a part inside the shelly estate yard if the goal was only to dispose of accidental/medical/abortion/stolen corpse death?

Not that we have any clue why the torso RIPPER chose to keep the torso deep inside the whitehall vault...

[RockySullivan]

inquest:


Mr. Charles Alfred Hibbert, assistant to Mr. Bond, deposed: I examined the arm on Sept. 16. It was a right arm, and had been separated from the shoulder joint. It measured 31in in length and was 13in in circumference at the point of separation, the wrist being 6½in round, and the hand 7½in long. The arm was surrounded at the upper part with a piece of string, which made an impression on the skin, and when it was loosened there was a great deal of blood in the arm. The hand was long, and the nails small and well shaped. It was the hand of a female. There were no scars or bruises. The arm had apparently been separated after death.
[Coroner]Did the arm seem to have been separated easily? - The operation was performed by a person who knew what he was doing - not by an anatomist, but by a person who knew the joints.
[Coroner]Had the cuts been done by a very sharp knife? - They were perfectly clean. I found that the skin cuts of the arm corresponded with those of the trunk, and that the bones corresponded likewise. The same skill was manifested in both instances. The work was not the work of the dissecting-room - that was obvious. A piece of paper was shown to me as having been picked up near the remains, and it was stained with the blood of an animal.
[Coroner]Was there the mark of any ring on the finger? - No.

Inspector Marshall, of the Criminal Investigation Department, said: About five o’clock on Oct. 2 I went to the new police buildings on the Thames Embankment, and in the basement saw the trunk referred to by previous witnesses. The corner from which it had been taken was pointed out to me, and I saw that the wall was a great deal stained. Examining the ground I found the piece of paper alluded to by the last witness, as well as a piece of string, apparently sash-cord. Dr. Hibbert handed me two pieces of material which had come from the remains. I at once made a thorough search of the vaults, but nothing more was discovered. On the following morning, with other officers, I made a further search of all the vaults, but nothing more was found nor anything suspicious observed. The piece of paper spoken to forms part of an Echo of Aug. 24. Dr. Hibbert handed me a number of small pieces of paper found on the body. They are pieces of the Chronicle, but I cannot yet establish the date. It is not of this year’s issue. With respect to the dress it is of broché satin cloth, of Bradford manufacture, but a pattern probably three years old.
[Coroner]Is it a common dress? - It is made of common material. There is one flounce six inches wide at the bottom. The material could probably be bought at 6½d per yard. I have examined the hoarding round the works.
[Coroner]Is it possible to get over it? - There is a place in Cannon-row where a person could easily get over, but there is no indication of anybody having done so. The latch which has been referred to is not likely to have been noticed except by a person acquainted with buildings. The string with which the parcel was tied was a miscellaneous lot. One piece is of sash-cord, and the rest is of different sizes, and there is also a piece of black tape.
[Coroner]Did you form any opinion as to how long the parcel had been where it was found? - From the stain on the wall I certainly thought several days, but the witness Edge told me he was sure it was not there on the previous Saturday.
[Coroner]Edge being recalled repeated his assertion that the remains were not in the vault on the Saturday, as they were discovered in the very place where he looked for the hammer.
The Coroner: Do you think it possible that the parcel was there without your seeing it? - I am sure it was not there.

-

The pieces of paper on top of the body were in small pieces. What significance did these papers have and why did the killer place them on top of the torso?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor do you have any plausible explanation for why the torso "dumper" would deposit the torso with buried leg inside the whitehall vault? Or how for that matter? Why would the "dumper" leave a part inside the shelly estate yard if the goal was only to dispose of accidental/medical/abortion/stolen corpse death?

Not that we have any clue why the torso RIPPER chose to keep the torso deep inside the whitehall vault...

The only plausible explanations which would apply to either a killer or someone else disposing of the parts at different locations as a result of another type of death would be to

1. Hide the evidence of some unlawful act
2. Hide the identity of the victim.
3. Prevent the body parts being found which might point to either or both of the above.

Like I have said previously we have no sketches or detailed descriptions or photos of the location of this so called vault. It may not have been as hidden away as has been suggested and may not have been the type of vault we have come to believe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

inquest:


Mr. Charles Alfred Hibbert, assistant to Mr. Bond, deposed: I examined the arm on Sept. 16. It was a right arm, and had been separated from the shoulder joint. It measured 31in in length and was 13in in circumference at the point of separation, the wrist being 6½in round, and the hand 7½in long. The arm was surrounded at the upper part with a piece of string, which made an impression on the skin, and when it was loosened there was a great deal of blood in the arm. The hand was long, and the nails small and well shaped. It was the hand of a female. There were no scars or bruises. The arm had apparently been separated after death.
[Coroner]Did the arm seem to have been separated easily? - The operation was performed by a person who knew what he was doing - not by an anatomist, but by a person who knew the joints.
[Coroner]Had the cuts been done by a very sharp knife? - They were perfectly clean. I found that the skin cuts of the arm corresponded with those of the trunk, and that the bones corresponded likewise. The same skill was manifested in both instances. The work was not the work of the dissecting-room - that was obvious. A piece of paper was shown to me as having been picked up near the remains, and it was stained with the blood of an animal.
[Coroner]Was there the mark of any ring on the finger? - No.

Inspector Marshall, of the Criminal Investigation Department, said: About five o’clock on Oct. 2 I went to the new police buildings on the Thames Embankment, and in the basement saw the trunk referred to by previous witnesses. The corner from which it had been taken was pointed out to me, and I saw that the wall was a great deal stained. Examining the ground I found the piece of paper alluded to by the last witness, as well as a piece of string, apparently sash-cord. Dr. Hibbert handed me two pieces of material which had come from the remains. I at once made a thorough search of the vaults, but nothing more was discovered. On the following morning, with other officers, I made a further search of all the vaults, but nothing more was found nor anything suspicious observed. The piece of paper spoken to forms part of an Echo of Aug. 24. Dr. Hibbert handed me a number of small pieces of paper found on the body. They are pieces of the Chronicle, but I cannot yet establish the date. It is not of this year’s issue. With respect to the dress it is of broché satin cloth, of Bradford manufacture, but a pattern probably three years old.
[Coroner]Is it a common dress? - It is made of common material. There is one flounce six inches wide at the bottom. The material could probably be bought at 6½d per yard. I have examined the hoarding round the works.
[Coroner]Is it possible to get over it? - There is a place in Cannon-row where a person could easily get over, but there is no indication of anybody having done so. The latch which has been referred to is not likely to have been noticed except by a person acquainted with buildings. The string with which the parcel was tied was a miscellaneous lot. One piece is of sash-cord, and the rest is of different sizes, and there is also a piece of black tape.
[Coroner]Did you form any opinion as to how long the parcel had been where it was found? - From the stain on the wall I certainly thought several days, but the witness Edge told me he was sure it was not there on the previous Saturday.
[Coroner]Edge being recalled repeated his assertion that the remains were not in the vault on the Saturday, as they were discovered in the very place where he looked for the hammer.
The Coroner: Do you think it possible that the parcel was there without your seeing it? - I am sure it was not there.

-

The pieces of paper on top of the body were in small pieces. What significance did these papers have and why did the killer place them on top of the torso?

"The arm was surrounded at the upper part with a piece of string, which made an impression on the skin, and when it was loosened there was a great deal of blood in the arm."

Does this not suggest a tourniquet ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk