The Whitehall Mystery

[John Wheat]

The problem is, John Wheat, that you are not exactly able to provide conclusive evidence that the torso cases WERE the work of a serial killer. Therefore, any demands to provide evidence pro or against are by and large useless. The only thing it will produce is an unnecessary claim of board surface.

... and that goes for jaded and hip posters alike.

Theres no evidence that Crossmere was the Ripper but that doesn't stop you going on about it. People should be free to discuss the Torso Killer.

[John G]

There's no conclusive evidence that any of the Whitechapel victims were murdered by a serial killer but It's extremely likely that they were. In my opinion, there is a strong liklihood that the 1887-1889 victims were murdered by a serial killer, based upon the rarity of these crimes, the abdominal mutilation, the unnecessary risks taken by the perpetrator, and the lack of any other reasonable explanation.

I would also add the Tottenham Torso, on balance of probability, although there is much more doubt about the earlier 1872/73 cases.

[John Wheat]

There's no conclusive evidence that any of the Whitechapel victims were murdered by a serial killer but It's extremely likely that they were. In my opinion, there is a strong liklihood that the 1887-1889 victims were murdered by a serial killer, based upon the rarity of these crimes, the abdominal mutilation, the unnecessary risks taken by the perpetrator, and the lack of any other reasonable explanation.

I would also add the Tottenham Torso, on balance of probability, although there is much more doubt about the earlier 1872/73 cases.

Absolutely John. The evidence does suggest a serial killer from 1887-1889 and also the Tottenham Torso. There seems to be less information on the 1873-74 cases but I think they could also be the work of the same serial killer.

Cheers John

[John G]

Absolutely John. The evidence does suggest a serial killer from 1887-1889 and also the Tottenham Torso. There seems to be less information on the 1873-74 cases but I think they could also be the work of the same serial killer.

Cheers John

Hi John,

Thanks. And it's worth noting that the earlier Battersea case, 1873, was definitely murder, the cause of death being a blow to the right temple, and the jury delivered a verdict of wilful murder.

Trevor's arguments seem to be based upon the premise that "anything's possible". Yes, but that doesn't mean that all explanations are equally as likely, however fantastical they may be.

[Fisherman]

Theres no evidence that Crossmere was the Ripper but that doesn't stop you going on about it. People should be free to discuss the Torso Killer.

Am I in any way hindering you?

I donīt think so. In fact, I am very much FOR a discussion about the Torso killer, as you would know if you had read my input on the thread.

What I can do without is the kindergarten stuff - you canīt prove it, so you have no say, ha, ha!

Sort of.

But never mind. I think that Charles Lechmere was the Whitechapel killer, so I have nothing intelligible to offer.

And my take that there IS evidence pointing in Lechmeres direction is of course simply wrong - you would know that a lot better than me.

I am just a jaded poster with a case to push, God only knows. But YOU! You are the bright and shining future of Ripperology.

Thanks for putting me in place.

[RockySullivan]

Wasn't there a man who accosted liz Jackson in the park near where she slept that tried to rob her?

[John Wheat]

Am I in any way hindering you?

I donīt think so. In fact, I am very much FOR a discussion about the Torso killer, as you would know if you had read my input on the thread.

What I can do without is the kindergarten stuff - you canīt prove it, so you have no say, ha, ha!

Sort of.

But never mind. I think that Charles Lechmere was the Whitechapel killer, so I have nothing intelligible to offer.

And my take that there IS evidence pointing in Lechmeres direction is of course simply wrong - you would know that a lot better than me.

I am just a jaded poster with a case to push, God only knows. But YOU! You are the bright and shining future of Ripperology.

Thanks for putting me in place.

To Fisherman

No you are not hindering me. The fact that you are very much for a discussion about the Torso Killer is in no way indicated in your most recent posts. Am I supposed to remember what posts you wrote much earlier in the thread off by heart?

Your posts from my opinion felt like an attack on my posts and also an avoidance of what I was attempting to get which was one of the posters who was going on about there being no Torso Killer to put there money where there mouth is and show something tangible as to why the Torso Killer allegedly didn't exist. Its worth noting they haven't thus far.

Perhaps you should be clearer with your posts. As for me being the bright and shinning future of Ripperology I'll take that as a compliment. Although I'm sure it wasn't intended that way.

Cheers John

[RockySullivan]

Let's get back to the topic at (dismembered) hand

[RockySullivan]

From PC Pennett


[Coroner]Did you see any one with a bundle? - No, Sir. I did not see a costermonger's cart about. I saw a barrow in Spildts-street. It had a board on it, and had been there the whole time I was on duty. I saw no other cart or vehicle about, with the exception of those coming out of Christian-street, which belonged to Messrs. Fairclough. These started soon after 4 o'clock in the morning. I did not see any of these come down Pinchin-street. These vans went in all directions, and I can't say if any of them went into Cable-street.


Now what type of profession employs a barrow like the one described? And if the killer had used this cart he likely could not abandon it so he may have been watching from afar or planned to return for it. The cart could point to the what's on governor man, he was in the area carrying a broom...what was he doing? Why wasn't he questioned when the sleeping men were. Did he send for a copper? Did the man work for fairclough's? And I believe John G has brought this up...but could fairclough be a relative of liz Jackson's boyfriend? Don't forget fairclough had black eyes from a fight

[jerryd]

From PC Pennett


[Coroner]Did you see any one with a bundle? - No, Sir. I did not see a costermonger's cart about. I saw a barrow in Spildts-street. It had a board on it, and had been there the whole time I was on duty. I saw no other cart or vehicle about, with the exception of those coming out of Christian-street, which belonged to Messrs. Fairclough. These started soon after 4 o'clock in the morning. I did not see any of these come down Pinchin-street. These vans went in all directions, and I can't say if any of them went into Cable-street.


Now what type of profession employs a barrow like the one described? And if the killer had used this cart he likely could not abandon it so he may have been watching from afar or planned to return for it. The cart could point to the what's on governor man, he was in the area carrying a broom...what was he doing? Why wasn't he questioned when the sleeping men were. Did he send for a copper? Did the man work for fairclough's? And I believe John G has brought this up...but could fairclough be a relative of liz Jackson's boyfriend? Don't forget fairclough had black eyes from a fight

Hi Rocky,

Broom man was the man sent by PC Pennett to retrieve his mate on the adjoining beat. He then headed up Backchurch Lane to the adjoining beat and two constables came to the scene. I read somewhere, and can't find it now, that a scavenger that was at the scene went in Cable Street and alerted someone of the body, a crowd then began to gather in Pinchin Street. I was under the impression broom man was the scavenger.

As to why he wasn't questioned? That is a good question. I believe they were all questioned at some point. Some made the inquest and others did not, which always frustrates me if they were right there in the area at the time of a murder. One of the sailors sleeping in the far arch and the shoe black sleeping in the middle arch were in the inquest but the other was not. Maybe they had no useful information?

[Fisherman]

John Wheat:

No you are not hindering me. The fact that you are very much for a discussion about the Torso Killer is in no way indicated in your most recent posts. Am I supposed to remember what posts you wrote much earlier in the thread off by heart?

It would help immensely if you at least managed to keep track of what I have argued and what I have not argued. I will help you; this was posted all of twelve days ago, on this very thread:

"We should not say that the two must have been one and the same. That would be ludicruous. But this discussion plays out against a background where it has been a taboo to even breath the possibility. Anybody who has suggested a connection has been pooh-poohed over the years, and much discussion has been vociferously drenched by naysayers. I feel the discussion MUST be had, since there IS a real chance that the two killers were identical. And if they were, then the differences have a lot to say about the type of killer we would be dealing with. Meaning that there is a path of research open to us that we should absolutely not close down."

Your posts from my opinion felt like an attack on my posts and also an avoidance of what I was attempting to get which was one of the posters who was going on about there being no Torso Killer to put there money where there mouth is and show something tangible as to why the Torso Killer allegedly didn't exist. Its worth noting they haven't thus far.

I was not "attacking" your post, John Wheat. I was questioning the value of the parties in this discussion telling each other that neither could prove their respective points. You will no doubt have noticed that we have an ex-policeman on the thread, repeatedly pointing out that the torso cases were cases where no cause of death could be provided. Consequently, the verdict "found dead" was repeatedly given, instead of "wilful murder".
This is something the poster at hand uses to try and establish that we should not look upon the cases as a series of murders. "Ha, ha, you cannot prove your case", sort of.
Personally, I donīt find it very persuasive as an argument.

Demanding conclusive evidence before we acknowledge any value on behalf of a theory we find opposing our own thoughts is utterly useless if we cannot provide any such evidence to bolster our own take in the first place.
That is why I said that the manure-throwing in that department is bonkers. It had nothing at all to do with "attacking anybody", but everything to do with a wish to see a discussion about the caserelated details and how they balance the matter, instead of a "you donīt have proof/nor do you" playground brawl.

Perhaps you should be clearer with your posts. As for me being the bright and shinning future of Ripperology I'll take that as a compliment. Although I'm sure it wasn't intended that way.

Until you have actually read and remembered my posts, you may want to be careful about commenting on them being unclear.
Whether you are the bright and shining future of Ripperology? Well, letīs hope so! But I donīt think any prolonged discussion about how little we can prove is a path leading to that position. I donīt exclude, however, that you can do much, much better if you put your mind to it.

[John Wheat]

John Wheat:

No you are not hindering me. The fact that you are very much for a discussion about the Torso Killer is in no way indicated in your most recent posts. Am I supposed to remember what posts you wrote much earlier in the thread off by heart?

It would help immensely if you at least managed to keep track of what I have argued and what I have not argued. I will help you; this was posted all of twelve days ago, on this very thread:

"We should not say that the two must have been one and the same. That would be ludicruous. But this discussion plays out against a background where it has been a taboo to even breath the possibility. Anybody who has suggested a connection has been pooh-poohed over the years, and much discussion has been vociferously drenched by naysayers. I feel the discussion MUST be had, since there IS a real chance that the two killers were identical. And if they were, then the differences have a lot to say about the type of killer we would be dealing with. Meaning that there is a path of research open to us that we should absolutely not close down."

Your posts from my opinion felt like an attack on my posts and also an avoidance of what I was attempting to get which was one of the posters who was going on about there being no Torso Killer to put there money where there mouth is and show something tangible as to why the Torso Killer allegedly didn't exist. Its worth noting they haven't thus far.

I was not "attacking" your post, John Wheat. I was questioning the value of the parties in this discussion telling each other that neither could prove their respective points. You will no doubt have noticed that we have an ex-policeman on the thread, repeatedly pointing out that the torso cases were cases where no cause of death could be provided. Consequently, the verdict "found dead" was repeatedly given, instead of "wilful murder".
This is something the poster at hand uses to try and establish that we should not look upon the cases as a series of murders. "Ha, ha, you cannot prove your case", sort of.
Personally, I donīt find it very persuasive as an argument.

Demanding conclusive evidence before we acknowledge any value on behalf of a theory we find opposing our own thoughts is utterly useless if we cannot provide any such evidence to bolster our own take in the first place.
That is why I said that the manure-throwing in that department is bonkers. It had nothing at all to do with "attacking anybody", but everything to do with a wish to see a discussion about the caserelated details and how they balance the matter, instead of a "you donīt have proof/nor do you" playground brawl.

Perhaps you should be clearer with your posts. As for me being the bright and shinning future of Ripperology I'll take that as a compliment. Although I'm sure it wasn't intended that way.

Until you have actually read and remembered my posts, you may want to be careful about commenting on them being unclear.
Whether you are the bright and shining future of Ripperology? Well, letīs hope so! But I donīt think any prolonged discussion about how little we can prove is a path leading to that position. I donīt exclude, however, that you can do much, much better if you put your mind to it.

To Fisherman

I have been following this thread and was unable to recall what your viewpoint was regarding earlier posts. You may be able to keep track of everyone's viewpoints on several threads I on the other hand the evidence would suggest cannot.

I was not looking to start or participate in a playground brawl but was inviting those that believe there was no Torso Killer to show something slightly more concrete suggesting there was no Torso Killer than they had previously stated.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

I have been following this thread and was unable to recall what your viewpoint was regarding earlier posts. You may be able to keep track of everyone's viewpoints on several threads I on the other hand the evidence would suggest cannot.

I was not looking to start or participate in a playground brawl but was inviting those that believe there was no Torso Killer to show something slightly more concrete suggesting there was no Torso Killer than they had previously stated.

Cheers John

Then we may as well join forces, since that is the exact thing I would like to see myself! I fear, however, that we shall both be deprived of any contributions to that effect.

[RockySullivan]

Were the whitehall and pinchin victims who had been reported missing but slipped thru the cracks or were they never reported? Since Jackson was a pro along with the ripper victims...do you think the other torsos were working girls? If they worked in a brother would they be reported missing if they disappeared?

[Fisherman]

Were the whitehall and pinchin victims who had been reported missing but slipped thru the cracks or were they never reported? Since Jackson was a pro along with the ripper victims...do you think the other torsos were working girls? If they worked in a brother would they be reported missing if they disappeared?

If they were socially disconnected, there will be a much larger chance that they are not reported.

Prostitutes are to a large extent socially disconnected.

Thatīs how I do the maths here.