The Whitehall Mystery

[Observer]

Just out of interest, could you reveal how many victims you would lump together under the same serial killer, in what seems to be a "more the merrier " approach? If, indeed that is your approach. Frankly, I'm just a little bit confused as to your position! Could I impose on you to make at least a token attempt to explain your reasoning?

As I've noted before, the ritualistic elements of a serial killers signature can evolve or become more elaborate, whilst remaining "behaviorally similar, thematically consistent." See Schlesinger et al, 2010. However, you need to establish some sort of nexus between the crimes you're attempting to link as part of a series.

Considered together, from 1873 until 1889, the torso murders make some sense. Considered together, some of the 1888 Whitechapel murders make some sense, i.e. in respect of signature, MO, escalation. If you try and lump them all together, what you end up with is a complete mess.

And, just for completeness, Liz Jackson did not suffer genital mutilation, unlike Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, of course. Moreover, there is no evidence that Jackson's external organs of regeneration" were intentionally mutilated.

I would also note that there are some similarities between the Pinchin Torso and the Whitechapel murders, which is why I've argued that this torso murder was intended as a parody of the Whitechapel murders. Happily, this also seems to have been Commissioner James Monro's position!

Liz Jackson did not suffer genital mutilation? Debra A seems to think so, and I believe she is correct in this assumption.

This is what Debra said

"The external organs of generation were mutilated in the case of Elizabeth Jackson, Rocky. Removed with flaps of skin from the abdomen and part of the right buttock in the same way Mary Kelly's were"

Why do you suppose the external organs of generation were removed with part of the right buttock?

Iv'e stated on many occasions that I consider the C5 plus Tabram to have fallen foul of the same killer. I don't believe all of the torso victims to have been the result of murder. None showed any real signs of foul play. Liz Jackson was possibly murdered, possibly, but not, in my opinion, by the Whitechapel murderer, although as Debra Pointed out there are similarities between Jacksons mutilations and Mary Kelly's.

You wrote

"Considered together, from 1873 until 1889, the torso murders make some sense"

I don't believe they do. I don't think they are linked in any way. London was and is a huge city, body parts turning up was a rare occurance, it happened. My point being numerous little dramas played out every day, fatal abortion accidental death, hence the need to dipose of the bodies minus head, which would of course identify the deceased.

Its a huge leap of faith don't you think, to suggest that the Pinchin Street torso was murdered to order, on the anniversary of Chapmans murder, and dumped near to the Liz Stride murder site, the chalked Lipski message close by adding to the drama.

Regarding the Ripper murders, you can google to your hearts content, quote Keppel, Schlesinger, et al, and you'll still be no nearer to understanding what motivated the Whitechapel murderer. It's gone, he's gone, it's lost to us now.

Just my opinion of course.

[Debra A]

...I would also remind you of Dr Phillips' comments at the Pinchin Torso inquest: "The mutilations in the Dorset-Street case where most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

In other words, the mutilations in the torso cases may have been incidental. rather than, say, a signature characteristic.

John, the comparisons made by Philips were between MJK and the Pinchin St torso, not MJK and all torso cases. I've always felt that what Philips must have been asked to compare was what was perceived to be an unsuccessful attempt at limb and head removal in the case of MJK against the Pinchin St torso limb and head removal. Could it really be a comparison of the one slash 'mutilation' on the abdomen of the Pinchin St torso? Would this have been done simply to aid disposal?

[Debra A]

And, just for completeness, Liz Jackson did not suffer genital mutilation, unlike Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, of course. Moreover, there is no evidence that Jackson's external organs of regeneration" were intentionally mutilated.

Elizabeth Jackson's external genitalia suffered extremely similar mutilations to those of MJK, John, there is a closer match in the description of the mutilations in that area between MJK and Elizabeth Jackson than there is between the Pinchin St torso and Elizabeth Jackson.

[Debra A]

So if the Torsos weren't as a result of murder what happened to them?

Noooo! Don't get him started on failed abortions and medical specimens again!

[John Wheat]

John
You must know by now with both the torsos and jtr
I don't beleive all of the torsos were as a result of murder so I automatically rule out a serial killer
As to the WM I can draw a case for three being killed by the same hand which would make them the work of a SK

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So if the Torsos weren't as a result of murder what happened to them?

[John G]

John
You must know by now with both the torsos and jtr
I don't beleive all of the torsos were as a result of murder so I automatically rule out a serial killer
As to the WM I can draw a case for three being killed by the same hand which would make them the work of a SK

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Thank you for clarifying your position, that is what I understood it to be.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

This is interesting. Can you confirm that you now believe all the torso victims to have been murdered? Can you confirm whether you believe the same perpetrator is responsible for the "torso murders", plus the C5 and Tabram?

John
You must know by now with both the torsos and jtr
I don't beleive all of the torsos were as a result of murder so I automatically rule out a serial killer
As to the WM I can draw a case for three being killed by the same hand which would make them the work of a SK

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

An excellent post !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

This is interesting. Can you confirm that you now believe all the torso victims to have been murdered? Can you confirm whether you believe the same perpetrator is responsible for the "torso murders", plus the C5 and Tabram?

[John G]

Hey John

You seem to have dodged another question. You commented on the fact that the uterus of Chapman was removed from the crime scene.




The thing is Debra A (in the same post) also commented on the fact that Elizabeth Jackson's external organs of generation were mutilated.



It's little wonder you dodged this observation, in an earlier post you stated the following

Just out of interest, could you reveal how many victims you would lump together under the same serial killer, in what seems to be a "more the merrier " approach? If, indeed that is your approach. Frankly, I'm just a little bit confused as to your position! Could I impose on you to make at least a token attempt to explain your reasoning?

As I've noted before, the ritualistic elements of a serial killers signature can evolve or become more elaborate, whilst remaining "behaviorally similar, thematically consistent." See Schlesinger et al, 2010. However, you need to establish some sort of nexus between the crimes you're attempting to link as part of a series.

Considered together, from 1873 until 1889, the torso murders make some sense. Considered together, some of the 1888 Whitechapel murders make some sense, i.e. in respect of signature, MO, escalation. If you try and lump them all together, what you end up with is a complete mess.

And, just for completeness, Liz Jackson did not suffer genital mutilation, unlike Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, of course. Moreover, there is no evidence that Jackson's external organs of regeneration" were intentionally mutilated.

I would also note that there are some similarities between the Pinchin Torso and the Whitechapel murders, which is why I've argued that this torso murder was intended as a parody of the Whitechapel murders. Happily, this also seems to have been Commissioner James Monro's position!

[Trevor Marriott]

So are we all to bow down to Keppel?

Every serial killer is unique. I myself have used Sutcliffe as a comparison when considering motive, and methodology. I'm not sure now whether it is wise to compare JTR with any other serial killer.

Serial killers( the ones who have been apprehended) are notoriously reluctant to reveal their true motives. Perhaps those motives are too dark. I believe it's very difficult for them to reveal their true inner thoughts, to do so would reveal their undoubted depravity.

Bundy blamed porn, Sutcliffe blamed being short changed by a prostitute. Both lied.

It's very difficult to pin them down. Some shrinks blame a depraved childhood, but it's much much more than this. We'll get nowhere pidgeon-holing the serial killer, each is unique.

JTR was never apprehended, we havn't a clue what motivated him to do the things he did, and I include Keppel in this.

As for picquerism, disorganised, organised, it's all BS to me.

An excellent post !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Observer]

Isn't Google wonderful by the way?

Perhaps. However, I doubt that Dr Hebbert had been introduced to the exiting world of signature analysis! Most serial killers are not driven by "sexual mania"; they have anti-social personality disorders. In other words, they're psychotic.

Keppel et al, considered the C 5 and Tabram to be linked, and concluded that JtR was a lust murderer. Donald Swanson insightfully pointed out that the torso victims were not mutilated in the genital area, unlike JtR's victims, suggesting a different motive.

Nonetheless, Keppel also considered that the most important signature characteristic of JtR was picquerism. However, this creates all sorts of problems. Firstly, picquerists are normally saidistic , and I don't think JtR was. Secondly, it's questionable as to whether the condition even exists: the DSM lists picquerism under the vague paraphilia " not otherwise specified category ", whilst I believe the ICD doesn't recognise the condition at all.

I therefore recognise that a degree of caution, and an open mind, is required .

So are we all to bow down to Keppel?

Every serial killer is unique. I myself have used Sutcliffe as a comparison when considering motive, and methodology. I'm not sure now whether it is wise to compare JTR with any other serial killer.

Serial killers( the ones who have been apprehended) are notoriously reluctant to reveal their true motives. Perhaps those motives are too dark. I believe it's very difficult for them to reveal their true inner thoughts, to do so would reveal their undoubted depravity.

Bundy blamed porn, Sutcliffe blamed being short changed by a prostitute. Both lied.

It's very difficult to pin them down. Some shrinks blame a depraved childhood, but it's much much more than this. We'll get nowhere pidgeon-holing the serial killer, each is unique.

JTR was never apprehended, we havn't a clue what motivated him to do the things he did, and I include Keppel in this.

As for picquerism, disorganised, organised, it's all BS to me.

[Observer]

Hey John

You seem to have dodged another question. You commented on the fact that the uterus of Chapman was removed from the crime scene.

But it wasn't removed from the crime scene, unlike Chapman, Eddowes. Neither was the kidney removed, unlike Eddowes.

The thing is Debra A (in the same post) also commented on the fact that Elizabeth Jackson's external organs of generation were mutilated.

The external organs of generation were mutilated in the case of Elizabeth Jackson, Rocky. Removed with flaps of skin from the abdomen and part of the right buttock in the same way Mary Kelly's were.

It's little wonder you dodged this observation, in an earlier post you stated the following

I was looking for examples of where a killer alternated between two completely different signatures/ritualistic behaviours within a short time frame. JtR targeted the genitals, the Torso killer didn't. .

[John G]

Yes, but Hebbert specifically talks of the 'mutilations' on the cases he has viewed. We know he was at Miller's Court with Bond (probably writing for Bond while Bond worked with Philips), and we know there were photographs taken of Eddowes mutilations but Hebbert wouldn't have seen any of the other victims' mutilations in person or in a photograph. if Hebert is including the torso cases then he apparently also thought the torso cases were done by someone suffering from 'sexual mania', as he called it.
I think it's interesting and relevant if he did.

Perhaps. However, I doubt that Dr Hebbert had been introduced to the exiting world of signature analysis! Most serial killers are not driven by "sexual mania"; they have anti-social personality disorders. In other words, they're psychotic.

Keppel et al, considered the C 5 and Tabram to be linked, and concluded that JtR was a lust murderer. Donald Swanson insightfully pointed out that the torso victims were not mutilated in the genital area, unlike JtR's victims, suggesting a different motive.

Nonetheless, Keppel also considered that the most important signature characteristic of JtR was picquerism. However, this creates all sorts of problems. Firstly, picquerists are normally saidistic , and I don't think JtR was. Secondly, it's questionable as to whether the condition even exists: the DSM lists picquerism under the vague paraphilia " not otherwise specified category ", whilst I believe the ICD doesn't recognise the condition at all.

I therefore recognise that a degree of caution, and an open mind, is required .

[John G]

You mean it wasn't retained? Neither was MJk's uterus but it was removed. The heart was never recovered in Elizabeth Jackson's case, he may have retained that? How can you be so certain the heads were retained in the torso cases?

I think it's a reasonable inference that a more organised Torso Murderer prevented discovery of the heads in order to ensure that his victims were not identified. A less organized JtR took no such precautions.

[Debra A]

Thanks Debra. Wasn't Dr Bond asked to review all of the "Whitechapel Murders", which resulted in his famous profile? And isn't there suspicion that the Bond Report that ensued was actually written by his assistant, Dr Hebbert? Could this be what Hebbert was referring to?

Yes, but Hebbert specifically talks of the 'mutilations' on the cases he has viewed. We know he was at Miller's Court with Bond (probably writing for Bond while Bond worked with Philips), and we know there were photographs taken of Eddowes mutilations but Hebbert wouldn't have seen any of the other victims' mutilations in person or in a photograph. if Hebert is including the torso cases then he apparently also thought the torso cases were done by someone suffering from 'sexual mania', as he called it.
I think it's interesting and relevant if he did.