The Whitehall Mystery

[Jon Guy]

Not by me- Dr Phillip's is one of my heroes! !

I know, John ;-)
I was just codding.

Mind you, some people on this thread don't seem to think that the opinions of any of the medical professionals should count for much-makes you wonder why they bothered to qualify, when there's obviously so many talented amateurs about!

Like Torso Man and Jack the Ripper you mean ...?

But, seriously, didn`t Jack try to decapitate Chapman, and failed (or maybe ran out of time) ? Something Torso Man would have achieved.

[Fisherman]

Because it has been suggested that there may have been certain similarities between Jackson's mutilation and Kelly's I thought I would cite Dr Hebbert, who examined Jackson's body: " That the mutilations were carried out after death by some person with a considerable technical knowledge of the speedier mode of cutting up animals."

It therefore appears that the mutilations in the Jackson case were to allow for the expedient dismemberment of the body. Clearly, not so in Kelly's case, where the mutilations were clearly radically different, exhibiting no skill or discernible purpose whatsoever: see the opinions of Dr Phillips, who considered the Kelly mutilations to be "most wanton", and carried out with a degree of "savagery"; and Dr Bond, who considered that the killer exhibited no skill at all.

And Kelly's murderer clearly wasn't trying to efficiently dismember the body!

You say yourself that the Torso victims were dismembered to facilitate transportation.
But the killer never intended to transport Kelly - so why should we expect any dismemberment there?

It could all boil down to the killer dismembering victims of bodies that he had killed in his own home - or bolthole - in order to enable him to rid himself of them afterwards. Whereas no such need was there in the so called Ripper cases.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

According to Dr Phillips the mutilations inflicted on the Pinchin Street victim were inflicted for purposes of disposing of the body. Therefore, it appears that any similarities are superficial at best.

Are opened-up abdomens examples of "superficial similarity" only? And the odd missing uterus?

[Fisherman]

Dr Phillips didn't believe the Pinchin Street Torso was a Ripper victim.

Mmm - but Phillips was rather picky - he did not believe that Eddowes was a Ripper victim either...

[John G]

Hi John

I thought it was agreed by all that Dr Phillip`s observations don`t count. ;-)

Hi Jon,

Not by me- Dr Phillip's is one of my heroes! Mind you, some people on this thread don't seem to think that the opinions of any of the medical professionals should count for much-makes you wonder why they bothered to qualify, when there's obviously so many talented amateurs about!

[Jon Guy]

see the opinions of Dr Phillips,

Hi John

I thought it was agreed by all that Dr Phillip`s observations don`t count. ;-)

[John G]

Because it has been suggested that there may have been certain similarities between Jackson's mutilation and Kelly's I thought I would cite Dr Hebbert, who examined Jackson's body: " That the mutilations were carried out after death by some person with a considerable technical knowledge of the speedier mode of cutting up animals."

It therefore appears that the mutilations in the Jackson case were to allow for the expedient dismemberment of the body. Clearly, not so in Kelly's case, where the mutilations were clearly radically different, exhibiting no skill or discernible purpose whatsoever: see the opinions of Dr Phillips, who considered the Kelly mutilations to be "most wanton", and carried out with a degree of "savagery"; and Dr Bond, who considered that the killer exhibited no skill at all.

And Kelly's murderer clearly wasn't trying to efficiently dismember the body!

[John G]

Hi JohnG
I think the police and doctors at the time and you are perhaps being thrown off by the dismemberment, which to my eyes is more than likely related to MO-NOT Sig.

The uterus of the Whitehall torso was (in all likelihood) missing!

Hi Abby,

In a sense I don't think that it really matters. In respect of the mutilations, I don't see anything apart from superficial similarities. And it does appear that, in the Torso cases, they were effected for purposes of disposal of the body. That was certainly what Dr Phillips felt, in respect of the Pinchin Street case, and Dr Hebbert doesn't appear to disagree.

Of course, the mutilations in the Whitechapel cases had a very different purpose.

Body dismemberment can be regarded as part of a killer's signature if he repeats the ritual: Schlesinger, 2010.

[John G]

I disagree. The pelvis was removed at the 4th lumbar vertebra and the pelvic viscera are noted to be absent. Also, the uterus is not listed among the organs that have been examined.

Hello Debra,

Thanks. It's strange that the uterus isn't specifically listed as missing, although I suppose it could have been lost during transportation of the corpse. And, of course, Jackson's uterus was not missing.

[John G]

Thanks for the detailed response JohnG!

However, your responses to what was the rippers and Torsoman's specific sig is somewhat convoluted, involving MO's, similarities, others opinions etc. etc.

lets try to simplify and break it down to its most basic points.

Ripper-post mortem mutilation involving removal/taking away body parts, abdominal mutilations.

Torso man-Post mortem mutilation involving "possible" removal/taking away body parts, abdominal mutilations.

To me the lowest common denominator is post mortem mutilation-found in both. Now what exactly was done, what areas were targeted, what organs removed is secondary when balanced with the fact that ANY kind of post mortem mutilation in a serial killer is so extremely rare. AND in both cases body parts were removed and never recovered-ie.-Body parts as "trophys".

If the torsomans sig(or the main reason for killing) is dismemberment, why the other mutilations?

I wrote "possible" removal/taking away organs for Torsoman because as you rightly pointed out these may have been accidently lost/removed and not the real sig. However, we don't know for sure if they are missing by accident or design but I lean towards on purpose, because of the other evidence of mutilations on the bodies.

And then we have a possible secondary motivation (of sig), which is leaving/ displaying victims bodies in an ways to taunt and shock the police/public. So we agree on that similarity.

IF, however, if the torsomans dismemberment is a signature then I would tend to concede it points to two different killers. However, IMHO, it seems the dismemberment of the victims of torsoman is part of MO-in ease of disposal without getting caught.

So, I think we have the same basic signature for both the ripper and torsoman and if they are two separate killers (Which believe it or not-gun to my head-I still think we do) then it is almost as unlikely that we have two post mortem mutilating serial killers operating at the same time and place than if they were the same Killer! its nuts either way!

Hi Abby,

Thanks for the reply! The question which I consider fundamental is this:What did the killer intend? Let us therefore contrast Kelly and Jackson. Now I agree there might be superficial similarities, but clearly we have two perpetrators with two very different objectives. Firstly, the Torso Killer: according to Dr Hebbert he dismembered the body exercising a great deal of skill-in fact, even more skill than Rainham or Whitehall, indicating he was becoming more experienced. Secondly JtR: Kelly was clearly subject to a frenzied assault, for apparently no discernible purpose whatsoever; her killer just seemed to be hacking away in a mindless frenzy. Therefore, if the two killers didn't have common goals, and they exercised different levels of skill, the only logical conclusion is that they were different killers; or at least there is no evidence that they were the same killers.

You can apply the same logic to the organs: JtR removed the uterus from both Chapman and Eddowes, possibly keeping them as trophies. In this case of the torso victims no body parts were missing in any of the cases, apart from lungs and heart in the case of Jackson: however, we cannot conclude that, even in this case, the killer retained them as trophies. Now, there is one similarity: Kelly's body parts were left in open display, presumably for shock value; Jackson's uterus was cut into and the foetus removed, possibly for shock value. In fact, as I noted in my reply to Fisherman, this is one signature characteristic that the Torso killer and JtR seemed to have in common.

However, I do agree that the numerous unsolved crimes of this period is perplexing. In fact, I think that's a little "nuts!", especially when you consider how rare some of these murders were. I mean, in addition to the C5 and the torso victims we have Tabram, Horsnell, Mylett, Smith, McKenzie, Coles. I mean, the Smith assault was highly unusual, i.e. the insertion of an object. It's hard to believe that her killer(s) wouldn't strike again.

Maybe we're dealing with a gang with Torso as the Boss and JtR Underboss!

[Abby Normal]

Hello Dane,

As far as I'm aware none of the torso victims suffered mutilations to the genitals, unlike JtR's victims, which is the very point Donald Swanson made. Dr Phillips didn't believe the Pinchin Street Torso was a Ripper victim: he pointed out that any mutilations were probably carried out for purposes of disposing of the body. Why are his opinions important? Firstly, he was a medical professional and, secondly, he was heavily involved in the Whitechapel cases.

The uterus of Chapman and Eddowes were retained by the serial killer, presumably as a trophy. In respect of Jackson, the uterus was not retained-in fact, I would argue that he wasn't interested in the uterus at all, but the foetus.

The mutilations inflicted on Kelly and Jackson are, in my opinion, radically different. Thus, in Kelly's case there is no evidence of design: the killer just seems to have hacked away at the body for no discernable purpose. In the case of Jackson, the body was cut up for purposes of dismemberment. And a great deal of skill was demonstrated, I.e a very different scenario to a killer hacking away in a frenzy. In fact, Dr Hebbert stated that even more skill was apparent than in the Whitehall and Rainham cases.

The uterus of the Whitehall victim was not missing.

Hi JohnG
I think the police and doctors at the time and you are perhaps being thrown off by the dismemberment, which to my eyes is more than likely related to MO-NOT Sig.

The uterus of the Whitehall torso was (in all likelihood) missing!

[Debra A]

The uterus of the Whitehall victim was not missing.

I disagree. The pelvis was removed at the 4th lumbar vertebra and the pelvic viscera are noted to be absent. Also, the uterus is not listed among the organs that have been examined.

[John G]

Some posts back, you (at least I think it was you) quoted one of the FBI profilers, who said that Jack the Ripper aimed to produce shock value. Some lines further down you wrote that the Torso killer also aimed to produce shock value.

So maybe they both (or a single killer...) had the self same purpose when killing, albeit it is not easy to tell to what extent this (alleged) wish governed the deeds.

Let me take you a bit further down the same road: you have claimed that the Pinchin Street torso would have been a result of the Torso killer parodying Jack the Ripper.
In a sense, that would be very much related to a wish to shock the public. It would both be prime examples of how these men (or this man) try really hard to kill along lines that were meant to satisfy not himself (or themselves), but instead a perceived audience.

To my mind, this is a factor that needs to be weighed into the whole reasoning: if a killer (or two killers) are prepared to deviate from their normal manners and methodologies - as you yourself propose or seem to believe - then where is the line in the sand drawn? How much of the killings will be shaped by the inner urges and desires of the killer(s), and how much will be the result of a wish to please a perceived audience?

Once we realize the full impact of this question, we will see the hitherto very fixed borders start to dissolve, wonīt we?

Either these men (this man) were programmed to kill along lines and patterns that were beyond their own powers of ruling, or they (he) were able to "design" his (their) deeds in order to make them look more or less alike.

Which is it?

Hello Fisherman,

I would agree that the evidence suggests that both the torso killer and JtR aimed to produce shock value. In the case of JtR the victims were left in the open and on display. There's also evidence that their bodies were posed in a degrading manner, i.e. "he often left the victims' legs splayed and their genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner..." (Keppel, 2005). Of course, the way Kelly's body was left, with her organs on open display, suggests the ultimate in shock value.

The torso killer was obviously different in many respects. However, having taken the trouble to dismember the bodies, and hide their identity, he seemed to make little effort to prevent the body parts being discovered. Finding the remains of a corpse in Scotland Yard must have been shocking, for the police at least! The Pinchin Street torso was on open display and looked as if it might have been posed. And throwing parts of Liz Jackson into Sir Percy Shelly's garden must have been shocking for whoever made the discovery!

I've been thinking more about the Pinchin Street victim being intended as a parody or a perverse copycat, and whether there is any precedent: might not Ellen Bury have been intended as a copycat of the Whitchapel murders?

I can accept that serial killers sometimes deviate, or evolve their signatures. However, what I find hard to accept is a killer who alternates between two fundamentally different signatures.

[John G]

But there was overlap, John. Two serial killers butchering women at the same time, in the same location (London), is, in itself, quite extraordinary, and leaves open the possibility of them being the same man. Is not possible that the signatures would vary depending on mood and circumstance? We've seen that the Ripper was capricious within his own series, e.g. the facial injuries on Eddowes being quite unlike anything else he did.

Hello Harry,

London was a large city of 5.6 million people, so it wouldn't be unrealistic for there to be two serial killers at large at the same time. Serial killers don't alternate between different signatures. Eddowes represents an escalation, i.e facial injuries, kidney removed.

[John G]

John G!

Just two snippets from your lengthy post nr 841:

1. "...all of the C5 victims without exception were murdered by having their throat cut."

You sometimes have an unhealthy habit of firing first and asking afterwards. It is well known that there were signs of strangulation in more than one case, and Llewellyn opted for the abdominal wounds having been inflicted before the cut neck in the Nichols case.

Simplification in all honour, but letīs not forget about the facts!

2. "Perhaps I should finish by quoting the wise words of two undoubted experts, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbellow: "On Tuesday 10 September 1889 unidentified female remains were found under a railway arch. This case bore no resemblance to a Ripper killing."

A word of advice: do not rely too heavily on authorities. They differ inbetween themselves, and you can always find authorities that do not support bits that other authorities do.
In this case, we have the almighty resemblance of the torso having had itīs abdomen cut open - a VERY common Ripper trait.
So which is it? Were there resemblances or were there not?
We should decide matters for ourselves, I think.

Hello Fisherman,

According to Dr Phillips the mutilations inflicted on the Pinchin Street victim were inflicted for purposes of disposing of the body. Therefore, it appears that any similarities are superficial at best.