The Whitehall Mystery

[Dane_F]

Because it has been suggested that there may have been certain similarities between Jackson's mutilation and Kelly's I thought I would cite Dr Hebbert, who examined Jackson's body: " That the mutilations were carried out after death by some person with a considerable technical knowledge of the speedier mode of cutting up animals."

It therefore appears that the mutilations in the Jackson case were to allow for the expedient dismemberment of the body. Clearly, not so in Kelly's case, where the mutilations were clearly radically different, exhibiting no skill or discernible purpose whatsoever: see the opinions of Dr Phillips, who considered the Kelly mutilations to be "most wanton", and carried out with a degree of "savagery"; and Dr Bond, who considered that the killer exhibited no skill at all.

And Kelly's murderer clearly wasn't trying to efficiently dismember the body!

If we believe that the torso killer cut people open from neck to pubes to help speed up the dismemberment my question is:

How? In the case of the Pinchin St Torso we have a long gash running from neck into the vagina and stopping in the left thigh area. We have the intestines visible through a rather decent sized opening in the abdomen. But the killer left all the organs.

I don't see how taking the time to make such a long cut and then doing nothing with it speeds up the dismemberment.

There's also the issue that the legs from the Pinchin St Torso appear to have been removed far earlier than the neck was. This is stated in the autopsy by the drastic different in color (the cuts to the legs were dark and dry while the neck was red and fresh). This again doesn't point to a killer who was in a hurry.

[Abby Normal]

You say yourself that the Torso victims were dismembered to facilitate transportation.
But the killer never intended to transport Kelly - so why should we expect any dismemberment there?

It could all boil down to the killer dismembering victims of bodies that he had killed in his own home - or bolthole - in order to enable him to rid himself of them afterwards. Whereas no such need was there in the so called Ripper cases.

Thank you Fish!!
thats what ive been saying all along!!!

(if they are the same killer)The torso victims were when the killer could bring them to a private place and dismemberment was for ease in disposing the body and the ripper victims were when he could not bring them to a private place and had to kill on the streets.

The dismemberment is therefore just part of the MO-not sig. which is why non of the ripper victims were dismembered.

The sig of torso ripper man is post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts.

[John G]

John- according to Trevor earlier in the thread - organs don't just fall out during transportation. Does that come from Dr Biggs? Or is it because Trevor would have us believe the organs were removed purposefully for resale?
Who can you trust to be objective, eh?

Hello Debra. I trust in your objectivity.

I don't recall Dr Biggs making any comment about organs falling out in transportation. However, I do remember sometime ago reminding Trevor that Dr Biggs concluded JtR could have eviscerated Eddowes in 5 minutes-although I'm not sure why Trevor Suggested the killer had only 5 minutes, as it could have been up to 10- which, of course, undermines his own theory about the organs. His response was that the other expert argued the opposite, so I concluded that Trevor was starting to lose confidence in Dr Biggs!

Of course, with respect to Trevor I could he wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Jon,

Yes, I have missed your sense of humour! Welcome to thread.

Excellent point. It could be argued that JtR attempted to decapitate several victims, including Kelly (and he surely didn't run out of time on that case). However, he clearly didn't succeed. Not a mistake that a decapitation expert like the Torso killer would surely make!

JohnG

Even IF, and I reiterate IF, dismemberment was part of torsomans sig (and not MO-which I believe all it was) then is it really expected that he would bring a saw along with his knife with him out on the streets to dismember/behead victims?

I don't think so.

So perhaps knowing he had to kill on the streets, he only brought a knife(because post mortem mutilation and organ removal was his true desire-sig), But also tried decapitating with the knife (chapman) only to realize it wasn't feasible.

[John G]

If we believe that the torso killer cut people open from neck to pubes to help speed up the dismemberment my question is:

How? In the case of the Pinchin St Torso we have a long gash running from neck into the vagina and stopping in the left thigh area. We have the intestines visible through a rather decent sized opening in the abdomen. But the killer left all the organs.

I don't see how taking the time to make such a long cut and then doing nothing with it speeds up the dismemberment.

There's also the issue that the legs from the Pinchin St Torso appear to have been removed far earlier than the neck was. This is stated in the autopsy by the drastic different in color (the cuts to the legs were dark and dry while the neck was red and fresh). This again doesn't point to a killer who was in a hurry.

Hello Dane,

I believe that Evans and Skinner (2000) argued that the cut towards the vagina indicated that the knife had slipped. This observation reminds us that we should be cautious about reading too much into things. Dr Phillips was clearly of the opinion that the mutilation were inflicted for purposes of disposing of the body. Dr Phillips was a medical expert who was heavily involved in the Whitechapel cases and his views deserve to be respected.

There were also indications that the Pinchin Street victims throat wasn't cut, unlike all of the C5 victims. Moreover, no genital mutilation, which appeared to he an important signature characteristic of JtR. And, of course, no organs removed.

[Jon Guy]

There were also indications that the Pinchin Street victims throat wasn't cut, unlike all of the C5 victims. .

Maybe, he strangled them, like some of the Ripper victims.

[John G]

JohnG

Even IF, and I reiterate IF, dismemberment was part of torsomans sig (and not MO-which I believe all it was) then is it really expected that he would bring a saw along with his knife with him out on the streets to dismember/behead victims?

I don't think so.

So perhaps knowing he had to kill on the streets, he only brought a knife(because post mortem mutilation and organ removal was his true desire-sig), But also tried decapitating with the knife (chapman) only to realize it wasn't feasible.

Hello Abby,

The only reason that Torsoman appeared to inflict post mortem mutilations was in order to aid the dismemberment process. I've no idea why JtR mutilated anyone, but he certainly wasn't trying to dismember bodies to disguise a murder!

As to the argument that "he had to kill on the streets", that possibly depends on whether he forgot to pay the previous month's rent on his dismemberment site! Oh, also on the fact that he was unable to acquire new premises, before the urge to kill overwhelmed him, resulting in the transformation into Ripperman.

[RockySullivan]

Hello Dane,

As far as I'm aware none of the torso victims suffered mutilations to the genitals, unlike JtR's victims, which is the very point Donald Swanson made. Dr Phillips didn't believe the Pinchin Street Torso was a Ripper victim: he pointed out that any mutilations were probably carried out for purposes of disposing of the body. Why are his opinions important? Firstly, he was a medical professional and, secondly, he was heavily involved in the Whitechapel cases.

The uterus of Chapman and Eddowes were retained by the serial killer, presumably as a trophy. In respect of Jackson, the uterus was not retained-in fact, I would argue that he wasn't interested in the uterus at all, but the foetus.

The mutilations inflicted on Kelly and Jackson are, in my opinion, radically different. Thus, in Kelly's case there is no evidence of design: the killer just seems to have hacked away at the body for no discernable purpose. In the case of Jackson, the body was cut up for purposes of dismemberment. And a great deal of skill was demonstrated, I.e a very different scenario to a killer hacking away in a frenzy. In fact, Dr Hebbert stated that even more skill was apparent than in the Whitehall and Rainham cases.

The uterus of the Whitehall victim was not missing.

Ok at this point your just deciding to make up the facts as you go along with no basis in reality. Read the source material or **** even just read back a day or two in this thread ( since apparently you can't remember that far back). The uterus was clearly removed from the whitehall victim and we've discussed it at length..i've probably said it a million times in this thread alone

[John G]

Maybe, he strangled them, like some of the Ripper victims.

Possibly, Jon. Or he may have simply bashed them over the head, as seems to have been the case with the Battersea Torso (1873).

[John G]

Ok at this point your just deciding to make up the facts as you go along with no basis in reality. Read the source material or **** even just read back a day or two in this thread ( since apparently you can't remember that far back). The uterus was clearly removed from the whitehall victim and we've discussed it at length..i've probably said it a million times in this thread alone

I think you need to calm down! The Whitehall Torso is the only torso victim where the uterus isn't recorded as being found, although technically it's not recorded as being missing either. It could also have been lost in transportation, for example.

And, if you're unable to regain control of yourself, I won't respond to any more of your posts: civility costs nothing.

[John G]

Are opened-up abdomens examples of "superficial similarity" only? And the odd missing uterus?

Only one Torso victim uterus was missing, or recorded as missing, and that my gut have been lost in transportation.

[John G]

You say yourself that the Torso victims were dismembered to facilitate transportation.
But the killer never intended to transport Kelly - so why should we expect any dismemberment there?

It could all boil down to the killer dismembering victims of bodies that he had killed in his own home - or bolthole - in order to enable him to rid himself of them afterwards. Whereas no such need was there in the so called Ripper cases.

A simpler solution to explain these differences is that they were different killers: Occam's Razor.

[RockySullivan]

I think you need to calm down! The Whitehall Torso is the only torso victim where the uterus isn't recorded as being found, although technically it's not recorded as being missing either. It could also have been lost in transportation, for example.

And, if you're unable to regain control of yourself, I won't respond to any more of your posts: civility costs nothing.

sorry...it wasn't removed..it was just recorded as being "absent". How is that not missing?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

The only reason that Torsoman appeared to inflict post mortem mutilations was in order to aid the dismemberment process. I've no idea why JtR mutilated anyone, but he certainly wasn't trying to dismember bodies to disguise a murder!

As to the argument that "he had to kill on the streets", that possibly depends on whether he forgot to pay the previous month's rent on his dismemberment site! Oh, also on the fact that he was unable to acquire new premises, before the urge to kill overwhelmed him, resulting in the transformation into Ripperman.

Hi JohnG

The only reason that Torsoman appeared to inflict post mortem mutilations was in order to aid the dismemberment process.

Really? Now how do you know that? were you standing next to him?How does removing organs and vertical cuts on an abdomen aid dismemberment?

I've no idea why JtR mutilated anyone, but he certainly wasn't trying to dismember bodies to disguise a murder!

I never said he did! where did this statement come from? Total non -sequitor.

As to the argument that "he had to kill on the streets", that possibly depends on whether he forgot to pay the previous month's rent on his dismemberment site! Oh, also on the fact that he was unable to acquire new premises, before the urge to kill overwhelmed him, resulting in the transformation into Ripperman

There could be any number of reasons why a serial killer would have to change his MO based on his living/personal conditions. Perhaps a family member was staying with him when he killed on the streets.

Many serial killers lived their mommies, had roomates etc.

Its really a simple concept JohnG, but since you have to get facetious over it I guess you cant grasp the concept.

wow, a serial killer changing his MO based on circumstances-Unbeleiveable!!!

[John G]

sorry...it wasn't removed..it was just recorded as being "absent". How is that not missing?

Where does it say it was absent?