The Whitehall Mystery

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

As I've noted previously the felony murder rule, abolished by the Homicide Act, 1957, was in effect during the nineteenth century. Under this common law doctrine, the crime of murder was broadened: you did not have to show a specific intent to kill, only that the offender was in commission of a dangerous or enumerated felony.

Regarding not knowing the methods carried out by back street medicos when complications set in. Well, that means that any conclusions emanating from such an argument are unsupported by precedent and therefore wildly speculative (in fact, I would suggest that there is no precedent, otherwise the police at the time would have considered the possibility, which they clearly didn't.) Contrastingly, there are many examples of bodies being dismembered to conceal a homicide, or as part of a killer's signature, therefore on that ground alone I would suggest that murder is by far the most likely explanation: Occam's razor.

As far as disposing of the body, are you seriously suggesting that placing remains in the pitch black catacombs of the under-construction New Scotland Yard building (Whitehall), which could have involved scaling a 9ft fence just to get access to the site, whilst carrying a torso, amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Are you seriously suggesting that placing remains in a area almost constantly observed by the police, and next to a military drill hall (Tottenham), amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Are you seriously suggesting that placing a torso near to two sleeping drunks (Pinchin Street) amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Particularly when the killer could have just thrown the remains in the Thames!

As to where he killed, there could be countless possibilities, including a warehouse he may have had access to, a shed, or even a boat, as I have suggested before. In fact, in 1873 the police believed that the Battersea Torso victim may have been dismembered in a boat, so this is clearly a more than viable proposition.

Regarding bringing "his victims from miles away", serial killers who adopt this strategy, i.e. transporting their victims bodies to dump sites, such as the Long Island serial killer, are considered organized serial killers! As are serial killers who disguise the identity of their victims, i.e. by decapitating them.

Not in 1888, they didn't have to many methods of transportation in those days. So the need for a quick and easy disposal would have been paramount.

Why would someone travel halfway across London when there would have been easier places of disposal near to where any murder took place. Again it doesnt fit. Why are you so fixated with a serial killer when you know that homicide cannot be conclusively proved?

There is no direct evidence to show when the body parts were deposited next to your drunken witnesses. Alleyways and archways and alcoves all look very different in the dark to what the look like in daylight. So to look at a dump site in daylight one might ask why on earth did he dump the remains here, but in the dead of night they all look different.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[RockySullivan]

Hello Trevor,

As I've noted previously the felony murder rule, abolished by the Homicide Act, 1957, was in effect during the nineteenth century. Under this common law doctrine, the crime of murder was broadened: you did not have to show a specific intent to kill, only that the offender was in commission of a dangerous or enumerated felony.

Regarding not knowing the methods carried out by back street medicos when complications set in. Well, that means that any conclusions emanating from such an argument are unsupported by precedent and therefore wildly speculative (in fact, I would suggest that there is no precedent, otherwise the police at the time would have considered the possibility, which they clearly didn't.) Contrastingly, there are many examples of bodies being dismembered to conceal a homicide, or as part of a killer's signature, therefore on that ground alone I would suggest that murder is by far the most likely explanation: Occam's razor.

As far as disposing of the body, are you seriously suggesting that placing remains in the pitch black catacombs of the under-construction New Scotland Yard building (Whitehall), which could have involved scaling a 9ft fence just to get access to the site, whilst carrying a torso, amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Are you seriously suggesting that placing remains in a area almost constantly observed by the police, and next to a military drill hall (Tottenham), amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Are you seriously suggesting that placing a torso near to two sleeping drunks (Pinchin Street) amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Particularly when the killer could have just thrown the remains in the Thames!

As to where he killed, there could be countless possibilities, including a warehouse he may have had access to, a shed, or even a boat, as I have suggested before. In fact, in 1873 the police believed that the Battersea Torso victim may have been dismembered in a boat, so this is clearly a more than viable proposition.

Regarding bringing "his victims from miles away", serial killers who adopt this strategy, i.e. transporting their victims bodies to dump sites, such as the Long Island serial killer, are considered organized serial killers! As are serial killers who disguise the identity of their victims, i.e. by decapitating them.

This is a good post and you make a great point about whitehall. If the whitehall was an abortion or operation gone wrong...what reason would the body be disposed of in such a strange and difficult to access location? Unless one of the workers was doubling as a back street abortionist I can't see any reason why the torso would be inside the whitehall vault. Do you have an explanation for this trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you prove george washington invented the telephone?

No but the point is the that if graffiti was on pinchin related to the torso it means it's more likely that the GSG was written by the killer and it means there's more of a reasonable probability the pinchin murder and stride/eddowes are connected.

Rubbish !

[John G]

It's perhaps worthwhile quoting Sir Melville Macnaghten's observations, from his memoranda, in which he clearly implies that the torso crimes where crimes of murder-and considering that the police at the time would obviously have had significant experience in investigating botched abortion crimes, these conclusions clearly carry weight:

"On 10th Sept. '89 the naked body, with arms, of a woman was found wrapped in some sacking under a Railway arch in Pinchin St: the head & legs were never found nor was the woman ever identified. She had been killed at least 24 hours before the remains, (which had seemingly been brought from a distance,) were discovered. The stomach was split up by a cut, and the head and legs had been severed in a manner identical with that of the woman whose remains were discovered in the Thames, in Battersea Park, & on the Chelsea Embankment on 4th June of the same year; and these murders had no connection whatever with the Whitechapel horrors. The Rainham mystery in 1887, & the Whitehall mystery (when portions of a woman's body were found under what is now New Scotland Yard) in 1888 were of a similar type to the Thames & Pinchin St crimes."

[John G]

Just to clarify one point wilful murder as a result of a failed abortion is still a homicide !

If you are a back street abortionist and someone dies in your front room at your hand, and you know that if this is discovered you stand to get in serious trouble what are you going to do?

Yes it has been explained how specifu abortions were carried out but we do not know what other methods or operations these back st medicos used when complications set in.

You first get rid of the body. Firstly removing all identifying features which might trace the victim back to you and your property so you get rid of the head first.Then you dismember the rest into smaller parcels or packages and dispose of them at a location you believe to be fairly safe and in doing so you want to get rid of them without having to travel to far carrying them.

All this ridiculous talk of a serial killer when it cannot be proved that the victims died as a result of foul play. Some need a reality check on here.

Solo killer ? where did he kill ?

Out on the street? -NO
In the victims house?-NO
In his own house- How many single men lived on their own and would have had the opportunity. For this to have been a viable option he would have had to bring his victims in from miles away, why do this when The East End was teeming with potential victims. Some of the torso were found miles away.

None of it fits no matter how you juggle it around

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

As I've noted previously the felony murder rule, abolished by the Homicide Act, 1957, was in effect during the nineteenth century. Under this common law doctrine, the crime of murder was broadened: you did not have to show a specific intent to kill, only that the offender was in commission of a dangerous or enumerated felony.

Regarding not knowing the methods carried out by back street medicos when complications set in. Well, that means that any conclusions emanating from such an argument are unsupported by precedent and therefore wildly speculative (in fact, I would suggest that there is no precedent, otherwise the police at the time would have considered the possibility, which they clearly didn't.) Contrastingly, there are many examples of bodies being dismembered to conceal a homicide, or as part of a killer's signature, therefore on that ground alone I would suggest that murder is by far the most likely explanation: Occam's razor.

As far as disposing of the body, are you seriously suggesting that placing remains in the pitch black catacombs of the under-construction New Scotland Yard building (Whitehall), which could have involved scaling a 9ft fence just to get access to the site, whilst carrying a torso, amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Are you seriously suggesting that placing remains in a area almost constantly observed by the police, and next to a military drill hall (Tottenham), amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Are you seriously suggesting that placing a torso near to two sleeping drunks (Pinchin Street) amounts to disposing of remains "at a location you believe to be fairly safe?" Particularly when the killer could have just thrown the remains in the Thames!

As to where he killed, there could be countless possibilities, including a warehouse he may have had access to, a shed, or even a boat, as I have suggested before. In fact, in 1873 the police believed that the Battersea Torso victim may have been dismembered in a boat, so this is clearly a more than viable proposition.

Regarding bringing "his victims from miles away", serial killers who adopt this strategy, i.e. transporting their victims bodies to dump sites, such as the Long Island serial killer, are considered organized serial killers! As are serial killers who disguise the identity of their victims, i.e. by decapitating them.

[MrBarnett]

Not bad: Kearley and Tonge, Pinchin and Johnson ...

Why not?

Thanks, Mr Barnett!

You're welcome, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Warehouses?

[ATTACH]16883[/ATTACH]

Not bad: Kearley and Tonge, Pinchin and Johnson ...

Why not?

Thanks, Mr Barnett!

[RockySullivan]

Can you prove who wrote either sets of graffiti ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you prove george washington invented the telephone?

No but the point is the that if graffiti was on pinchin related to the torso it means it's more likely that the GSG was written by the killer and it means there's more of a reasonable probability the pinchin murder and stride/eddowes are connected.

[Trevor Marriott]

About lipski...I'm not sure how well it's been proven...but John cleary is a fool was also said to be written there...this related to the man arnold who reported a murder before the pinchin torso appears. So it may likely have been written there. It's just another link with the ripper...two serial killers who chalk graffito? The odds stack up against the possibility of two unrelated murderers. However more than one person involved...in light of the whole arnold scenario could be a possibility.

Can you prove who wrote either sets of graffiti ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Observer,

Dr Clarke believed that the Pinchin Street victim was killed about 24 hours before he saw the body, which takes us to the early morning of Sunday, 9 September, so she was probably killed very close to the anniversary of Chapman's death.

Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist engaged by Trevor Marriott, stated that dismemberment is normally carried out to conceal a homicide: see Marriott, 2015. Moreover, if we consider the abdominal mutilations, and risks that were taken when disposing of the body-completely unnecessary if body disposal was the perpetrators only objective- then murder is by far the most obvious conclusion. However, I accept there may be other possibilities, but it seems to me that means resorting to extreme, fanciful explanations: I mean, as Debra has acutely pointed out, you do not mutilate the abdomen if you're intending to carry out an abortion! And, as I have pointed out, if you did that would still constitute murder under nineteenth century criminal law.

Just to clarify one point wilful murder as a result of a failed abortion is still a homicide !

If you are a back street abortionist and someone dies in your front room at your hand, and you know that if this is discovered you stand to get in serious trouble what are you going to do?

Yes it has been explained how specifu abortions were carried out but we do not know what other methods or operations these back st medicos used when complications set in.

You first get rid of the body. Firstly removing all identifying features which might trace the victim back to you and your property so you get rid of the head first.Then you dismember the rest into smaller parcels or packages and dispose of them at a location you believe to be fairly safe and in doing so you want to get rid of them without having to travel to far carrying them.

All this ridiculous talk of a serial killer when it cannot be proved that the victims died as a result of foul play. Some need a reality check on here.

Solo killer ? where did he kill ?

Out on the street? -NO
In the victims house?-NO
In his own house- How many single men lived on their own and would have had the opportunity. For this to have been a viable option he would have had to bring his victims in from miles away, why do this when The East End was teeming with potential victims. Some of the torso were found miles away.

None of it fits no matter how you juggle it around

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

The one C5 victim I cannot find any potential pointer to is Eddowes, but maybe somebody else can help out on that score?

Warehouses?

[RockySullivan]

Hi John

We just don't know when the Pinchin Street "murder" was commited. So, regarding the dates, it's rather a fanciful assumption to connect the Pinchin Street murder to the Annie Chapman murder. Also, if a connection was intended why didn't the murderer dump the body near to the Annie Chapman murder site?

How do we know that the word "Lipski" was written near the murder scene? It would be the easiest thing in the world for am "enterprising journalist" to include this in his article. If a certain "enterprising journalist" posted "Mishter Lusk" a human kidney, well, why wouldn't he want to revert back to those gravy train days when newspapers like The Star were making a fortune on the back of the Whitechapel murders?

I have no doubt that whoever disposed of the body parts during 1887/1889, had a warped sense of humour, I just do not believe that the remains were the result of murder.

About lipski...I'm not sure how well it's been proven...but John cleary is a fool was also said to be written there...this related to the man arnold who reported a murder before the pinchin torso appears. So it may likely have been written there. It's just another link with the ripper...two serial killers who chalk graffito? The odds stack up against the possibility of two unrelated murderers. However more than one person involved...in light of the whole arnold scenario could be a possibility.

[John G]

Hi John

We just don't know when the Pinchin Street "murder" was commited. So, regarding the dates, it's rather a fanciful assumption to connect the Pinchin Street murder to the Annie Chapman murder. Also, if a connection was intended why didn't the murderer dump the body near to the Annie Chapman murder site?

How do we know that the word "Lipski" was written near the murder scene? It would be the easiest thing in the world for am "enterprising journalist" to include this in his article. If a certain "enterprising journalist" posted "Mishter Lusk" a human kidney, well, why wouldn't he want to revert back to those gravy train days when newspapers like The Star were making a fortune on the back of the Whitechapel murders?

I have no doubt that whoever disposed of the body parts during 1887/1889, had a warped sense of humour, I just do not believe that the remains were the result of murder.

Hello Observer,

Dr Clarke believed that the Pinchin Street victim was killed about 24 hours before he saw the body, which takes us to the early morning of Sunday, 9 September, so she was probably killed very close to the anniversary of Chapman's death: James Monro calculated that she'd been killed on the night of Sunday 8 September.

Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist engaged by Trevor Marriott, stated that dismemberment is normally carried out to conceal a homicide: see Marriott, 2015. Moreover, if we consider the abdominal mutilations, and risks that were taken when disposing of the body-completely unnecessary if body disposal was the perpetrators only objective- then murder is by far the most obvious conclusion. That was also clearly the view of the police: see Commissioner Monro's report to JS Sanders. However, I accept there may be other possibilities, but it seems to me that means resorting to extreme, fanciful explanations: I mean, as Debra has acutely pointed out, you do not mutilate the abdomen if you're intending to carry out an abortion! And, as I have pointed out, if you did that would still constitute murder under nineteenth century criminal law. And no doubt that's why the police, who would have had experience in investigating botched abortions, rejected such fanciful explanations

[RockySullivan]

Kean observation fishman!

If the hand was positioned there it could mean the torso ripper was staging the parts like the ripper did. If the torso killers objective was shock value couldn't the rippings have been done to maximize shock value and minimize the work?

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman,

I think your acute observation is further evidence that Pinchin Street was intended as a parody of the Whitechapel murders. I mean, consider the other evidence: probably killed on the anniversary of Annie Chapman's murder; Torso left near to Berner Street, possibly by the same arches that Schwartz ran to; "Lipski" written in large chalk letters on pailings opposite where the Torso was dumped; abdominal wound very reminiscent of the wound inflicted on Eddowes; James Monro's report expressing a view that the wound leading to the vagina was made to "simulate" the Whitechapel murders.

And, of course, such an objective would be completely consistent with the Torso killer's warped sense of humour I.e. disposing of Liz Jackson's torso in the garden of Sir Percy Shelley's house; placing the Whitehall Torso in the foundations of the New police headquarters; leaving the Tottenham Torso in an area almost constantly observed by the police, and near to a military drill hall.

Hi John

We just don't know when the Pinchin Street "murder" was commited. So, regarding the dates, it's rather a fanciful assumption to connect the Pinchin Street murder to the Annie Chapman murder. Also, if a connection was intended why didn't the murderer dump the body near to the Annie Chapman murder site?

How do we know that the word "Lipski" was written near the murder scene? It would be the easiest thing in the world for am "enterprising journalist" to include this in his article. If a certain "enterprising journalist" posted "Mishter Lusk" a human kidney, well, why wouldn't he want to revert back to those gravy train days when newspapers like The Star were making a fortune on the back of the Whitechapel murders?

I have no doubt that whoever disposed of the body parts during 1887/1889, had a warped sense of humour, I just do not believe that the remains were the result of murder.