The Whitehall Mystery

[John Wheat]

Hello Fisherman,

I take your point about copycat killers. I happen to think that the Torso killer may well have been a strange, unprecedented killer. However, I could be wrong! I think Pinchin Street would be reasonably consistent with his MO: victim dismembered, victim decapitated, identification prevented, dump site used (and by that, I mean the body was disposed of an a different location to where the dismemberment/murder took place.) Of course, none of these factors apply to the Whitechapel murders. Mind you, maybe JtR was parodying Torsos work! Or perhaps, the Torso killer and JtR were working together. Now that wouldn't be unprecedented!

To John G

Or perhaps Jack the Ripper was an apprentice of The Torso Killer. I think this is more likely than them being one and the same.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

I have never called myself an expert on anything.

To Debra

Fisherman accused me of dissing the opinions and work of Debra Arif. So I assume he regards you as an expert. I don't however believe I have dissed your work or opinions.

Cheers John

[RockySullivan]

My take on matters, John, is that the two series are so different that a presumption of two killers is a good place to start. And indeed, most people start just there.
After that, since we have two series that cross paths both timewise and geographically, we must look for any similarities that can allow for a lone killer being responsible - the suggestion really must be given consideration.

When we do so, we can see that there are similaritites in the choice of victims too - Jackson was a casual prostitute, as were quite likely the Ripper victims, save Kelly who was more of a regular prostitute.

You have pointed to how the torso cases included victims that were said to be seemingly of a class higher up in society - but we have it on record that Jacksons hands were described as being too delicate to have done manual labour. So delicate hands and prostitution can co-exist! And the outcome in this case is that we seemingly have victimologies that ALSO cross paths - at least.

Finally, we have a number of similarities, as Debra so clearly has laid out for us to ponder.

There are of course dissimilaritites too - many of them - but the effort to see if there can be a connection is governed by the similarities, and not by the dissimilarities.

Once we arrive at this station, we can see that a case can be made for a shared identity between the Ripper and the Torso killer.

This is the basic stuff, the stuff that we all should digest and ponder.

After that, I have a personal interest in the potential connection, since I am a proponent of the Lechmere theory. Regardless of what others may think, I am a hundred per cent convinced that he is by far the best suspect ever presented for the Ripperīs role, and I am personally contended to think that he was the Ripper.

He was born in 1849, making him around 24 years old when the Torso series started out in 1873. That means that he is a very viable contender in terms of age - the mid twenties is when the bulk of serialists start out, or so Iīm told.

He grew up in St Georges, and he and his family stayed at different addresses in Thomas Street - plus in James Street, Mary-Ann Street and a couple of other addresses in that vicinity. Interestingly, one of the Torsos was found in that railway arch in Pinchin Street - formerly Thomas Street.

His mother stayed in 147 Cable Street in 1889, and her occupation was that of a catīs meat woman. So she dealt in horse flesh, cut up by means of using fine-toothed saws and sharp knives. The very type of tools used on the Pinchin Street torso, thus.

147 Cable Street is perhaps 150 yards away from the dump site of the Pinchin Street torso. And when that torso was dumped, it was believed that it had been manually carried to the arch, since there were no wheelmarks around, since nobody had seen or heard any cart and since there were sack imprints on the torso, suggesting that it had been carried in a sack from a nearby venue.

So for me, your proposition of a "parody killer", mixing his ordinary technique up with Ripper traits for some inexplicable reason, stands against my own feeling that Lechmere could have been responsible, using the Cable Street apartment, killing in his old grounds and having seclusion enough not to carry out any evisceration in the open streets.

As for the other torso victims, they were killed by somebody who had the means of transport to take the parts to different dumping sites. A horse and cart is the usual suggestion - the very working tools of a carman.

In a sense, this post also answers John Wheats question about suggested perpetrators of both crimes. And the answer incorporates a man who we know stood at the murder site of one of the Ripper victims as Robert Paul found him in August 1888, a man we know called himself Cross at the inquest, although his registered name - and the name we know he used formally - was Lechmere, a man who did not agree with what the serving PC said had been spoken as he was passed by - by this very carman.

Somebody may well say that we should not turn this thread into a Lechmere discussion. I wonīt. However, I find it necessary to point to how the carman can be fit into any reasoning about BOTH the Ripper and the Torso killer.

There was an abandoned wheelbarrow with a board on top near the arches apparently left there that morning. I think this may have been used to dump the torso...
(John g shares this theory i believe?)

[Debra A]

Thanks Debra. I'm not sure I would agree with the jury, especially when you consider the highly risky disposal site. I mean, why not just throw the body parts in the Thames? As to the missing organs, they could have been regained as trophies or, presumably, lost during transportation of the body. And why disguise the cause of death, when the killer had already disguised the identity of the victim?

It depends if it really was a risky disposal site, John. if that comes from Trow too then i'd be naturally a bit dubious now.
So you do think the killer in the Tottenham case could have retained the uterus for a trophy then? You didn't seem to be that keen on that idea with Elizabeth's 'removed' heart.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Well, I believe that Commissioner Monro argued that the Pinchin Street Torso was intended to "simulate", the Whitechapel murders. And, as I keep pointing out, Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the mutilations inflicted on the Pinchin victim only occurred incidentally, I.e to aid disposal of the body.

Fair point about copycat killets, by the way. In fact, if you wanted to be really clever you would have noted that I'd made the same point myself on other threads. In fact, I seem to remember saying that copycat murders only exist in crime fiction-oops!

Hi JohnG
thanks for responding! However, I noticed you didn't respond to these queries from me. If you could answer these for me it would be much appreciated.

Quote:
progressed with two very distinct, but in their own way consistent, MO's and signature?

Whats the sig of the ripper?
whats the sig of torsoman?


whats the distinct progression in sig of the ripper?
Whats the distinct progression in sig of torsoman?

[RockySullivan]

Hi Abby,

Great to hear from you again by the way! Actually, I'm quite calm, and I haven't even taken up yoga!

Okay, your theory that the Torso killer had lost is dismemberment site. I agree that it's clever, but the point I was trying to make is that it's also contrived. In fact, I was only partially joking about Rose Mylett. Applying your logic, her body was found only a couple of miles from the centre of the Whitechapel murders and she was strangled, as Polly and Annie were. And, of course, we can't assume that JtR would always have his knife with him: perhaps the impulse to kill once again overwhelmed him and he was forced to improvize. But then again, perhaps not!

Okay, returning to the specifics of your theory. If he'd lost his accommodation/dismemberment site, why not just take a break from serial killing? After all, there are considerable time gaps between some of the torso murders so he was probably able to restrain himself for significant periods.

And what had happened to his transport? I mean, presumably he had some sort of transport, i.e. to move the torsos to the dump sites. And the fact that the dump sites were scattered all over London, also suggests that he used transport.

And if he didn't have transport, why just focus on Whitechapel? particularly when the police presence was greatly increased and the locals were put on high alert.

And why were none of the Whitechapel murders decapitated. Why wasn't Kelly dismembered or decapitated, considering she was killed indoors?

I would also point out that Debra has never said that she believes that all the Torso murders and all of the Whitechapel murders were committed by the same person, as Rocky, for instance, seems to think. The specific comparison that she was making was between Kelly and Jackson. Now, I concede that there are some similarities between these two murders, however, as I noted, there are many dissimilarities. Kelly was not dismembered or decapitated. And the destruction of the body greatly exceeded what happened with Jackson. Moreover, Dr Hebbert seemed to conclude that any mutilations occurred incidentally, i.e. to facilitate the dismemberment process: that was certainly not the case with Kelly! And, of course, Dr Hebbert believed that Jackson's killer demonstrated a great deal of skill: obviously not the case with Kelly's murder. Incidentally, Dr Phillips came to the same conclusion about the Pinchin Street Torso: " The mutilations in the Dorset-Street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body" However, I must also concede that there are major dissimilarities between Kelly and the earlier Whitechapel victims, as Lynn and Trevor frequently point out!

And, as I've also noted, we don't even know that Jackson was murdered. As Dr Biggs opined, she may have been the victim of a back street procedure gone wrong. Mind you, Francis Thompson was probably living a few yards away from Kelly when she was murdered. And, of course, he trained as a surgeon so he could have conceivably set himself up as a back street abortionist/practitioner...maybe I should give further thought to a link between Kelly and Jackson!

i've never once said debra thinks the torso killer an ripper the same...i said you were arguing with her about the facts of the case and shes far more knowledgeable than you or i. thats all.

and yes think the pinchin torso was in a separate arch than the sleeping men no?

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

I take your point about copycat killers. I happen to think that the Torso killer may well have been a strange, unprecedented killer. However, I could be wrong! I think Pinchin Street would be reasonably consistent with his MO: victim dismembered, victim decapitated, identification prevented, dump site used (and by that, I mean the body was disposed of an a different location to where the dismemberment/murder took place.) Of course, none of these factors apply to the Whitechapel murders. Mind you, maybe JtR was parodying Torsos work! Or perhaps, the Torso killer and JtR were working together. Now that wouldn't be unprecedented!

My take on matters, John, is that the two series are so different that a presumption of two killers is a good place to start. And indeed, most people start just there.
After that, since we have two series that cross paths both timewise and geographically, we must look for any similarities that can allow for a lone killer being responsible - the suggestion really must be given consideration.

When we do so, we can see that there are similaritites in the choice of victims too - Jackson was a casual prostitute, as were quite likely the Ripper victims, save Kelly who was more of a regular prostitute.

You have pointed to how the torso cases included victims that were said to be seemingly of a class higher up in society - but we have it on record that Jacksons hands were described as being too delicate to have done manual labour. So delicate hands and prostitution can co-exist! And the outcome in this case is that we seemingly have victimologies that ALSO cross paths - at least.

Finally, we have a number of similarities, as Debra so clearly has laid out for us to ponder.

There are of course dissimilaritites too - many of them - but the effort to see if there can be a connection is governed by the similarities, and not by the dissimilarities.

Once we arrive at this station, we can see that a case can be made for a shared identity between the Ripper and the Torso killer.

This is the basic stuff, the stuff that we all should digest and ponder.

After that, I have a personal interest in the potential connection, since I am a proponent of the Lechmere theory. Regardless of what others may think, I am a hundred per cent convinced that he is by far the best suspect ever presented for the Ripperīs role, and I am personally contended to think that he was the Ripper.

He was born in 1849, making him around 24 years old when the Torso series started out in 1873. That means that he is a very viable contender in terms of age - the mid twenties is when the bulk of serialists start out, or so Iīm told.

He grew up in St Georges, and he and his family stayed at different addresses in Thomas Street - plus in James Street, Mary-Ann Street and a couple of other addresses in that vicinity. Interestingly, one of the Torsos was found in that railway arch in Pinchin Street - formerly Thomas Street.

His mother stayed in 147 Cable Street in 1889, and her occupation was that of a catīs meat woman. So she dealt in horse flesh, cut up by means of using fine-toothed saws and sharp knives. The very type of tools used on the Pinchin Street torso, thus.

147 Cable Street is perhaps 150 yards away from the dump site of the Pinchin Street torso. And when that torso was dumped, it was believed that it had been manually carried to the arch, since there were no wheelmarks around, since nobody had seen or heard any cart and since there were sack imprints on the torso, suggesting that it had been carried in a sack from a nearby venue.

So for me, your proposition of a "parody killer", mixing his ordinary technique up with Ripper traits for some inexplicable reason, stands against my own feeling that Lechmere could have been responsible, using the Cable Street apartment, killing in his old grounds and having seclusion enough not to carry out any evisceration in the open streets.

As for the other torso victims, they were killed by somebody who had the means of transport to take the parts to different dumping sites. A horse and cart is the usual suggestion - the very working tools of a carman.

In a sense, this post also answers John Wheats question about suggested perpetrators of both crimes. And the answer incorporates a man who we know stood at the murder site of one of the Ripper victims as Robert Paul found him in August 1888, a man we know called himself Cross at the inquest, although his registered name - and the name we know he used formally - was Lechmere, a man who did not agree with what the serving PC said had been spoken as he was passed by - by this very carman.

Somebody may well say that we should not turn this thread into a Lechmere discussion. I wonīt. However, I find it necessary to point to how the carman can be fit into any reasoning about BOTH the Ripper and the Torso killer.

[John G]

We have discussed the verdict earlier in the thread, John. The jury made their conclusions apparently based on the fact that certain organs were missing from the body, police believed the organs were removed either to disguise the sex of victim or to disguise the cause of death. Obviously the uterus was missing.

Thanks Debra. I'm not sure I would agree with the jury, especially when you consider the highly risky disposal site. I mean, why not just throw the body parts in the Thames? As to the missing organs, they could have been regained as trophies or, presumably, lost during transportation of the body. And why disguise the cause of death, when the killer had already disguised the identity of the victim?

[Debra A]

Thank you for correcting me Debra, I promise do do better next time! I wasn't aware of the verdict of the Tottenham inquest, but am I correct in saying that Dr Lloyd expressed no view on how she might have died? If so, I don't see how the jury were entitled to conclude that it was not murder, particularly when you consider the risks taken with the disposal of the body parts.

We have discussed the verdict earlier in the thread, John. The jury made their conclusions apparently based on the fact that certain organs were missing from the body, police believed the organs were removed either to disguise the sex of victim or to disguise the cause of death. Obviously the uterus was missing.

[John G]

...for it not to have been another killer?

Sigh.

The French always say "Vive la Difference!", but Iīm not so sure any longer.

So, a serialist who decides to "parody" another serialists work? For what reason?

So as to avoid having suspicion thrown his own way? Hardly.

So that the police would understand that it was him? Gimme a break!

So that .. what, really?

Are there any precedents? Not that I would demand such a thing, but out of interest: how many serialists with well defined MO:s have done perodies of other serialists work?

If there are very clear hints to a well-known murder series in a new murder case, the reasonable thing to suspect is that the perpetrator of the series is trying to call attention to his new deed, claiming it as his own. Itīs not the other way around, John!

Hello Fisherman,

I take your point about copycat killers. I happen to think that the Torso killer may well have been a strange, unprecedented killer. However, I could be wrong! I think Pinchin Street would be reasonably consistent with his MO: victim dismembered, victim decapitated, identification prevented, dump site used (and by that, I mean the body was disposed of an a different location to where the dismemberment/murder took place.) Of course, none of these factors apply to the Whitechapel murders. Mind you, maybe JtR was parodying Torsos work! Or perhaps, the Torso killer and JtR were working together. Now that wouldn't be unprecedented!

[John G]

Bravo, John - there is hope!

Thanks Fisherman!

[John G]

Hi JohnG



OK-but these coincidences are now due to torsoman wanting it to be a "parody" of the ripper victims?(but of course cant be due to it being the same killer) somekind of copycat?

Talk about fantasy comic book stuff. I believe in the annals of crime-no killer has tried to copycat another killer, either to throw off police or as some kind of game. Never-I see people talk of copycat killers on here all the time-one of the biggest myths in criminology There is no such thing. Nor has there ever been.

However, one thing I do tend to agree with you on, is that both the ripper and torso man, regardless whether they were the same person or not, did both like the shock value and intentionally did things with th victims to taunt and shock, police press and public.

Hello Abby,

Well, I believe that Commissioner Monro argued that the Pinchin Street Torso was intended to "simulate", the Whitechapel murders. And, as I keep pointing out, Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the mutilations inflicted on the Pinchin victim only occurred incidentally, I.e to aid disposal of the body.

Fair point about copycat killets, by the way. In fact, if you wanted to be really clever you would have noted that I'd made the same point myself on other threads. In fact, I seem to remember saying that copycat murders only exist in crime fiction-oops!

[John G]

As the 1884 girl with the exotic phantom rose tattoo, Tottenham torso case was- as found by the inquest jury who heard all the evidence.


But first the basic facts must be right before comparisons can be made.


Police thought the leg was probably buried accidentally when drainage was dug in another area of the vault and the earth piled on top of where it lay.


Similar enough to be only a parody though, eh? LOL



Are we sure the two drunks weren't in different arches to each other and the Pinchin St torso placed in the middle arch? Not literally between the two drunks. I believe Trevor mentioned that as a possibility. I haven't checked on that.


Or the person who threw them into the Regent's canal sewn up in sacking was hoping they'd sink and disappear?



Or randomly thrown over the nearest bushes it was safe to do so?

I was asked at the beginning of the thread which one of the torso murders I thought was the most like a 'JTR' murder and I have answered that question.
I think there is more similarity in the mutilations inflicted upon Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson than between the Pinchin St torso and Elizabeth Jackson.

I just hate inaccuracies being repeatedly posted as fact.

Thank you for correcting me Debra, I promise do do better next time! I wasn't aware of the verdict of the Tottenham inquest, but am I correct in saying that Dr Lloyd expressed no view on how she might have died? If so, I don't see how the jury were entitled to conclude that it was not murder, particularly when you consider the risks taken with the disposal of the body parts.

Debra, are you now suggesting that the Pinchin Street Torso was a victim of JtR? Trevor won't be pleased! And Dr Phillips would presumably disagree, as he clearly believed that the mutilations were carried out to aid disposal of the body. And, of course, her body was dismemebred elsewhere and then dumped, unlike any of the Whitechapel victims; she was decapitated, unlike any of the Whitechapel victims...

However, I would agree that there is very little we can be certain of, and I'm almost coming to the view that Kelly is just as likely to be a Torso victim as a JtR victim...almost, but not quite!

What I cannot accept is an approach which seeks to lump all of the Torso murders together, and all of the Whitechapel murders together, and then conclude that they were all murdered by the same killer. Most likely George Chapman, according to Gordon! As, I'm sure you would agree, there are significant differences between the torso victims, as there are between the JtR victims, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to conclude that they were all victims of the same killer. At least not to me.

[Debra A]

Hi John G, Fisherman, Abby, Debra etc

The prevailing opinion at the time was that Jack and The Torso Killer were different killers taking that into account and however much an expert Debra is on The Torso Killer surely it is up to those who disagree with this view to make there argument rather than the other way round. Maybe even suggest a suspect or two? What about Wentworth Bellsmith for instance. Moved into London in 1873 and suspected of being both Jack and The Torso Killer.

Cheers John

I have never called myself an expert on anything.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
First of all take a deep breath-relax. your starting to hyperventilate!

Second-your response has nothing to do with my post. If it does somehow please clarify-im all ears.

Third-have you had a chance to read and absorb Debra's last post to you? All your responses so far seem oblivious to her valid points.

Finally-can you wrap your head around the idea that maybe, Just maybe, that the torso victims and ripper victims are by the same person, but that MO has to change because of the killers different circumstances concerning victims?

Hi Abby,

Great to hear from you again by the way! Actually, I'm quite calm, and I haven't even taken up yoga!

Okay, your theory that the Torso killer had lost is dismemberment site. I agree that it's clever, but the point I was trying to make is that it's also contrived. In fact, I was only partially joking about Rose Mylett. Applying your logic, her body was found only a couple of miles from the centre of the Whitechapel murders and she was strangled, as Polly and Annie were. And, of course, we can't assume that JtR would always have his knife with him: perhaps the impulse to kill once again overwhelmed him and he was forced to improvize. But then again, perhaps not!

Okay, returning to the specifics of your theory. If he'd lost his accommodation/dismemberment site, why not just take a break from serial killing? After all, there are considerable time gaps between some of the torso murders so he was probably able to restrain himself for significant periods.

And what had happened to his transport? I mean, presumably he had some sort of transport, i.e. to move the torsos to the dump sites. And the fact that the dump sites were scattered all over London, also suggests that he used transport.

And if he didn't have transport, why just focus on Whitechapel? particularly when the police presence was greatly increased and the locals were put on high alert.

And why were none of the Whitechapel murders decapitated. Why wasn't Kelly dismembered or decapitated, considering she was killed indoors?

I would also point out that Debra has never said that she believes that all the Torso murders and all of the Whitechapel murders were committed by the same person, as Rocky, for instance, seems to think. The specific comparison that she was making was between Kelly and Jackson. Now, I concede that there are some similarities between these two murders, however, as I noted, there are many dissimilarities. Kelly was not dismembered or decapitated. And the destruction of the body greatly exceeded what happened with Jackson. Moreover, Dr Hebbert seemed to conclude that any mutilations occurred incidentally, i.e. to facilitate the dismemberment process: that was certainly not the case with Kelly! And, of course, Dr Hebbert believed that Jackson's killer demonstrated a great deal of skill: obviously not the case with Kelly's murder. Incidentally, Dr Phillips came to the same conclusion about the Pinchin Street Torso: " The mutilations in the Dorset-Street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body" However, I must also concede that there are major dissimilarities between Kelly and the earlier Whitechapel victims, as Lynn and Trevor frequently point out!

And, as I've also noted, we don't even know that Jackson was murdered. As Dr Biggs opined, she may have been the victim of a back street procedure gone wrong. Mind you, Francis Thompson was probably living a few yards away from Kelly when she was murdered. And, of course, he trained as a surgeon so he could have conceivably set himself up as a back street abortionist/practitioner...maybe I should give further thought to a link between Kelly and Jackson!