The Whitehall Mystery

[John G]

Trevor's shtick is to go against the grain and set himself up some kind of mythbuster. The C5 were committed by more than one killer, the organs weren't taken by the killer, the apron didn't belong to Eddowes, the Torso Murders weren't the work of a serial killer etc.

Some might say that this is a very perceptive post, Harry!

[jerryd]

If they were abortions of sort, the body disposal suggests to me that murder was the intent. In other words, a certain person sets up shop to perform abortions with the ultimate intent to kill. The victims have no idea what they are getting into.

[Observer]

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.

So if your theory regarding shock value in the form of murdering on the anniversary of Chapmans murder is to be be believed the killer killed to order. That is, he specifically targeted and killed the Pinchin Street victim in order to coincide with the Chapman anniversary. I find this very unlikely. In my mind pure coincidence is the likely solution here.

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

"Dismemberment is normally carried out to conceal a homicide". The key word there is "normally", as you say there are other "fanciful" explanations. Although what do you class as fanciful? Compared to some of the fanciful ideas floating around this thread, I'd say the idea that the torso's were anything but the victims of murder is rather tame by comparison.

[Observer]

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.

Hi Rocky

I'm still taking the Lipski chalked message with a very large pinch of salt. Even if it was written near the Pinchin Street torso, there's no evidence to suggest it was written by the individual who dumped the torso under the railway arches.

[RockySullivan]

As I've indicated before I think that explanation is completely far-fetched, particularly as the torso murders took place over a much wider time frame. I mean, we would have to accept that he had no problem in finding a place to dismember with the earlier murders, and then in late 1888 he suddenly loses this facility, only to regain it again in 1889 (Jackson/Pinchin Street)! The mutilations were also fundamentally different between the Whitechapel murders and the Torso Murders-and that also applies to Pinchin Street- and surely that can't be related to whether he had a place to dismember or not. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Their objectives were also very different. As Donald Swanson pointed out, in respect of Pinchin Street: "What becomes most apparent is the absence of attack upon the genitals as in the series of Whitechapel murders beginning in Bucks Row and ending in Miller's Court."

And why wasn't Kelly dismembered, considering she was killed indoors and her killer probably had a considerable amount of time with the body?

I guess we all have a different perspective but I see clear similarities between the mutilations. Removing uterus, the flaps of skin. It's very possible that for some reason the killer couldn't dismember for a time or chose to switch up his mo. You mentioned the Lisk in an earlier post, there is a killer whose MO shifted between kills possibly to deter detection or possibly because he didnt feel the need to dismember certain victims. There are some cases where the lisk dumped a dismembered woman with a man who was left in one piece. He has dump sites with whole bodies and dismembered pieces at times spreading the extremities miles apart from each other and the torsos. Here is a killer who could very well have read the book on the torso killer and copies his methods.

As for the workers, the whitehall workers and the broom sweep from pinchin along with francis tyler and john richardson who worked at hanbury all may have been over looked. The foreman at whitehall claimed only someone who has been in the vault or had it described to him could be responsible and then you have the matter of a rotting torso going unnoticed for weeks by the workers. There is certainly something suspicious going on there, and at the time I believe the jury at the inquest viewed the workers with some suspicion along with Richardson who was also perceived suspiciously by the coroner.

Debra, did you ever catch the part about the whitehall worker who was questioned by police and admitted being there when he shouldnt in trows book?

[Abby Normal]

As I've said before, the torso killer and JtR had completely different MOs and signatures. And whilst a killer's signature can evolve, or become more elaborate, it makes no sense that he would be conforming to two completely different signatures during the same time frame.

Put simply, JtR was a less organized killer: he did not use dump sites, and made no attempt to hide the identity of his victims.

And, unlike the Torso killer, he obviously didn't have a warped sense of humour!

Hi JohnG
As you know I beg to differ.

As I've said before, the torso killer and JtR had completely different MOs and signatures.

This is not correct IMHO.

MO is how a killer commits the crime.

Signature is what the killer does above and beyond the functional aspect of the MO in order to satisfy his psychological need or urge. Its usually the same or similar with every victim.

MO can change.(usually due to circumstances).

Sig can change, but usually less so than MO.(usually due to escalation in the "fantasy").

There can be some overlap between MO and sig.

Sig usually points to the main motivation-the why-the killer does it. The main pleasure derived.

There can be secondary motivations to the main motivation.


In terms of MO:

Torso man: We don't know for sure how he targeted, lured and killed his victims. Only how he got rid of them.

Ripper: We are pretty sure we know of the rippers total MO.

Therefor you cant say they had totally different MOs. In terms of disposal of bodies-yes they different MOs in the disposal part of the MO, but Torso man may have had the exact same pick up and kill method.

We can infer that since the torso man more than likely targeted prostitutes, that he may have used the same pick up method, except that instead of accompanying the target to a secluded public place, he took them to his private place. The apparent difference in MO of disposal is therefore only for ease in ridding the body from his abode.

In terms of actual kill method, we need to ask: is it apparent how any of the torso victims were killed? If any show signs of strangulation or cut throats, then there is a similarity in actual Kill MO with the ripper.

In terms of sig:

Both series of victims had abdominal mutilations and organ removal. As this is extremely rare behavior, does in no way point to MO and seems to be the common denominator in all the victims, then it is more than likely that this is the signature and it is similar in both series.

As a specific example, note the similarities in the way the flaps of skin are removed from Jackson and Kelly.

Both series had attacks to the genatalia and/or reproductive organs and also included other parts of the body-ie the breasts and face.

In my opinion the signature is the same or extremely similar.

Put simply, JtR was a less organized killer: he did not use dump sites, and made no attempt to hide the identity of his victims.

Again I disagree. Both show signs of being a highly organized killer. It appears both used a ruse to lure the victim, no clues or murder weapon was ever left behind and both were able to disassociate themselves from there victims dead body with no trouble. Both show indications of knowing police beats. The ripper's actions the night of the double event also emphasizes his organized nature IMHO. No disorganized killer could have pulled it off.
Also, the facial mutilations of the ripper and possible attempt to remove heads is also similar to the torso man and may be indicative of trying to hide the identity of the victim.

In terms of secondary motivation, both show indications of wanting to shock the public/ taunt police etc.

So:

MO: only dissimilar in disposal aspect. lack of enough knowledge to make any definite conclusion.

Sig: the same or very similar

Secondary motivation: the same or similar

[RockySullivan]

[John G]

Hi JohnG
As you know I beg to differ.



This is not correct IMHO.

MO is how a killer commits the crime.

Signature is what the killer does above and beyond the functional aspect of the MO in order to satisfy his psychological need or urge. Its usually the same or similar with every victim.

MO can change.(usually due to circumstances).

Sig can change, but usually less so than MO.(usually due to escalation in the "fantasy").

There can be some overlap between MO and sig.

Sig usually points to the main motivation-the why-the killer does it. The main pleasure derived.

There can be secondary motivations to the main motivation.


In terms of MO:

Torso man: We don't know for sure how he targeted, lured and killed his victims. Only how he got rid of them.

Ripper: We are pretty sure we know of the rippers total MO.

Therefor you cant say they had totally different MOs. In terms of disposal of bodies-yes they different MOs in the disposal part of the MO, but Torso man may have had the exact same pick up and kill method.

We can infer that since the torso man more than likely targeted prostitutes, that he may have used the same pick up method, except that instead of accompanying the target to a secluded public place, he took them to his private place. The apparent difference in MO of disposal is therefore only for ease in ridding the body from his abode.

In terms of actual kill method, we need to ask: is it apparent how any of the torso victims were killed? If any show signs of strangulation or cut throats, then there is a similarity in actual Kill MO with the ripper.

In terms of sig:

Both series of victims had abdominal mutilations and organ removal. As this is extremely rare behavior, does in no way point to MO and seems to be the common denominator in all the victims, then it is more than likely that this is the signature and it is similar in both series.

As a specific example, note the similarities in the way the flaps of skin are removed from Jackson and Kelly.

Both series had attacks to the genatalia and/or reproductive organs and also included other parts of the body-ie the breasts and face.

In my opinion the signature is the same or extremely similar.



Again I disagree. Both show signs of being a highly organized killer. It appears both used a ruse to lure the victim, no clues or murder weapon was ever left behind and both were able to disassociate themselves from there victims dead body with no trouble. Both show indications of knowing police beats. The ripper's actions the night of the double event also emphasizes his organized nature IMHO. No disorganized killer could have pulled it off.
Also, the facial mutilations of the ripper and possible attempt to remove heads is also similar to the torso man and may be indicative of trying to hide the identity of the victim.

In terms of secondary motivation, both show indications of wanting to shock the public/ taunt police etc.

So:

MO: only dissimilar in disposal aspect. lack of enough knowledge to make any definite conclusion.

Sig: the same or very similar

Secondary motivation: the same or similar

Hi Abby,

The Torso killer didn't target the victims genitalia, as Donald Swanson acutely points out, so that's a clear difference in signature. We don't know that the Torso killer specifically targeted organs, unlike JtR. Nor do we know that he removed organs as trophies, as JtR almost certainly did; with the Torso Killer the organs may simply have been lost during disposal. The torso killer dismembered his victims, JtR didn't; that's also a difference in signature.

And if they were the same killer, why wasn't Kelly dismembered? After all, she was killed indoors, and her killer didn't seem to be under time pressures.

A serial killer's signature can evolve, or become more elaborate, although it remains behavioural and thematically consistent: see Schlesinger, 2010

http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full

In fact, Schlesinger sites an example of where a serial killer's signature evolved from genital mutilation to dismemberment. However, what I cannot accept is a serial killer presenting with two completely different signatures during the same time period, alternating between them! To be frank, that's just bizarre!

[John G]

So if your theory regarding shock value in the form of murdering on the anniversary of Chapmans murder is to be be believed the killer killed to order. That is, he specifically targeted and killed the Pinchin Street victim in order to coincide with the Chapman anniversary. I find this very unlikely. In my mind pure coincidence is the likely solution here.



"Dismemberment is normally carried out to conceal a homicide". The key word there is "normally", as you say there are other "fanciful" explanations. Although what do you class as fanciful? Compared to some of the fanciful ideas floating around this thread, I'd say the idea that the torso's were anything but the victims of murder is rather tame by comparison.

Hello Observer,

Yes, I agree that some people seem to have resorted to fanciful theories. In fact, I believe that Michael Gordon, who of course wrote a book on the subject, suggested that not only was there a single perpetrator of the torso and Whitechapel crimes but that the person responsible was George Chapman!

[RockySullivan]

Hi Abby,

The Torso killer didn't target the victims genitalia, as Donald Swanson acutely points out, so that's a clear difference in signature. We don't know that the Torso killer specifically targeted organs, unlike JtR. Nor do we know that he removed organs as trophies, as JtR almost certainly did; with the Torso Killer the organs may simply have been lost during disposal.

And if they were the same killer, why wasn't Kelly dismembered? After all, she was killed indoors, and her killer didn't seem to be under time pressures.

A serial killer's signature can evolve, or become more elaborate, although it remains behavioural and thematically consistent: see Schlesinger, 2010

http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full

In fact, Schlesinger sites an example of where a serial killer's signature evolved from genital mutilation to dismemberment. However, what I cannot accept is a serial killer presenting with two completely different signatures during the same time period, alternating between the two! To be frank, that's just bizarre!

John you might not accept the switch but like I said the LISK had done it many times with bodies dumped together same place same time. Abby did really good job with that last post. As for Kelly...the killer didn't dismember her because there was no reason for him to disperse her body parts

[John G]

John you might not accept the switch but like I said the LISK had done it many times with bodies dumped together same place same time. Abby did really good job with that last post. As for Kelly...the killer didn't dismember her because there was no reason for him to disperse her body parts

But this is a killer who was clearly motivated to disguise the identity of his victims, he even retained the head! Please site an example where a serial killer as alternated between two different signatures.

The reality is that we have a killer who has been reasonably consistent over a period of perhaps 16 years. The idea that he would completely change his ritualistic behaviour, during a brief period in 1888, because he'd inexplicably, but temporarily, lost access to suitable dismemberment sites seems totally far-fetched to me.

And where's the evidence that he had no access to a dismemberment site during the period of the Whitechapel murders?

It seems that two extreme points of view have formed. Thus, some posters seem to think that the Torso victims were not murdered at all and that nearly all, or most, of the Whitechapel victims were killed by different individuals. At the other extreme, all the Whitechapel victims plus all the Torso victims are lumped together, despite their many differences, with a single perpetrator. In fact, Gordon even adds Chapman's victims to the mix!

I reject both extremes.

[Fisherman]

As Donald Swanson pointed out, in respect of Pinchin Street: "What becomes most apparent is the absence of attack upon the genitals as in the series of Whitechapel murders beginning in Bucks Row and ending in Miller's Court."

Whoa! Swanson really should have consulted Trevor before going public with that prejudice ...

[John G]

Whoa! Swanson really should have consulted Trevor before going public with that prejudice ...

Yes, Swanson does seem to disagree with Trevor on this point. Mind you, he did happen to be leading the investigation at the time, with presumably full access to the medical reports/opinions!

[Fisherman]

Please site an example where a serial killer as alternated between two different signatures.

Gary Ridgway. He deliberately changed between different signatures (inserting pebbles into the vagina, posing the body, burning the hair, burying bodies etcetera) in order to deceive the police.

Of course, this does not mean that Ridgways TRUE signature desires altered. But it DOES mean that a serialist CAN change signatures by his own design.

[John G]

Gary Ridgway. He deliberately changed between different signatures (inserting pebbles into the vagina, posing the body, burning the hair, burying bodies etcetera) in order to deceive the police.

Of course, this does not mean that Ridgways TRUE signature desires altered. But it DOES mean that a serialist CAN change signatures by his own design.

Yes, but he didn't alternate between two very different, but distinct signatures/ritualistic behaviours. As Keppel has pointed out, if you consider the Whitechapel murders from Tabram through to Kelly, a clear evolution in signature behaviour is apparent, including escalation of the ritualistic elements. However, throw the Torso victims into the mix and it makes no sense at all.