The Whitehall Mystery

[AlanG]

An unsolved murder from 1888. A Women had her uterus removed.

''The Whitehall Mystery is an unsolved murder that took place in London in 1888. The dismembered remains of a woman were discovered at three different sites in the centre of the city, including the future site of Scotland Yard, the police's headquarters.''

I wonder how the police were able to immediately dismiss this as a ripper crime?
My second question is if this wasn't a ripper crime is it coincidence that the uterus was removed, or does this add credence tothe argument that organs were being removed post-mortem?

[John G]

An unsolved murder from 1888. A Women had her uterus removed.

''The Whitehall Mystery is an unsolved murder that took place in London in 1888. The dismembered remains of a woman were discovered at three different sites in the centre of the city, including the future site of Scotland Yard, the police's headquarters.''

I wonder how the police were able to immediately dismiss this as a ripper crime?
My second question is if this wasn't a ripper crime is it coincidence that the uterus was removed, or does this add credence tothe argument that organs were being removed post-mortem?

Hello Alan,

This was regarded as being part of a different series of murders, The Torso Murders. They included the Pinchin Street Torso, and the Tottenham Torso (The Girl with the Rose Tattoo.) The first in the series was believed to be in 1873, at Battersea.

[AlanG]

Thanks John

I was focusing more really on the removal of the uterus and the post mortem organ removals argument.

[Batman]

An unsolved murder from 1888. A Women had her uterus removed.

''The Whitehall Mystery is an unsolved murder that took place in London in 1888. The dismembered remains of a woman were discovered at three different sites in the centre of the city, including the future site of Scotland Yard, the police's headquarters.''

I wonder how the police were able to immediately dismiss this as a ripper crime?
My second question is if this wasn't a ripper crime is it coincidence that the uterus was removed, or does this add credence tothe argument that organs were being removed post-mortem?

Dr. Bond rejected JtR had medical skill but believed the torso killer did. That is what separated them. However as noted by surgeon Nick Warren, Bond may have assumed that the C5 where failed attempted decapitation.

Kelly exhibits examples of attempted amputation.

Modern views can link Annie Chapman, Kelly and Jackson by the triple sectioning of the abdominal wall.

Now here is the thing. Let's say you accept the C5 and pretty much the contemporary view. You can still retain a solid stance on the core points of the C5 and expand out to other Whitechapel murders which include this torso in the contemporary. I recommend reading Gordon on the torso murders.

[AlanG]

Thankyou very much Batman, I look forward to reading up.

[John G]

Hi Allen,

Gordon's book has been heavily criticised for the assumptions he makes. I would personally recommend MJ Grow's book as a much more objective view of the Torso Murders- and it's much cheaper!

There are major differences between the Torso murders. For example, the Torso Killer used dump sites, JtR didn't. Moreover, the Torso Murders, dating back to 1873, are linked by the tools the killer used to dismember his victims. And, as Grow points out, the medical experts were impressed with the way that each of the victims were cleanly disarticulated; such knife skills are not apparent in the Whitechapel murders.

[Batman]

I believe you mean Trow not MJ Grow . Its a good book but Gordon's a way more in keeping with the torso murder being a whitechapel murder. Have you read both John?

By the way when you say heavily criticized due you mean by ripperologists in general or just some who want to maintain Chapman innocence? I can understand the latter but never read such a dissertation to the former.

[John G]

I believe you mean Trow. Its a good book but Gordon's a way more in keeping with the torso murder being a whitechapel murder.

Hello Batman,

Yes, I meant Trow- predictive text issue! I have considered Gordon's book, but I've seen a number of negative comments, and it's pretty expensive! Also I don't believe the Torso Murders are related to the Whitechapel murders.

Firstly, there are differences in anatomical knowledge and skill: Trow argues persuasively that the Torso Murderer demonstrated exceptional knife skills as evidenced by the way he dismembered the bodies. This is not necessarily apparent with the Whitechapel murders: see Kelly, for example. Secondly, fundamental difference in MO: The Torso Murderer used dump sites, JtR didn't. Thirdly, difference in signature. You have suggested, as has Keppel, that JtR was a lust murderer, and I find that argument persuasive. In my opinion the Torso Murderer wasn't: see, for example, Professor Alison's forward to Trow's book (phew! I think I got the name right this time!) Fourthly, JtR operated exclusively in the Whitechapel area; JtR didn't. Fifthly, Trow persuasively argues that the Torso Murders started in 1873, which would clearly eliminate most of the JtR suspects, including Chapman.

I think, as another poster suggested some time ago, Gordon was pursuing his own agenda, I.e. that the Torso and Whitechapel murders were linked, and the perpetrator was Chapman. Unfortunately, that resulted in some incredulous conclusions, which, in my opinion, involves stretching the facts to breaking point in order to fit a weak hypothesis.

[Batman]

Well the opposite agenda is people with suspects other than Chapman are going to reject it before opening a page. It was expensive but well worth it and I learned more than just the Trow book alone.

[John G]

To be honest I have no strong suspect; it's probably just as likely to be None of the Above, than any of the multitude of suspects that have been put forward. However, I think certain suspects can be discounted. Chapman, for instance, because of radical differences in signature. As I've noted before, there isn't an example, that I'm aware of, of a violent killer transforming into a slow prisoner: or vice versa. Moreover, Chapman was clearly a sadist, whereas JtR wasn't. And I believe that whoever removed Chapman's uterus, and Edoowes uterus and kidney, had a high level of surgical skill, or at least anatomical skill (in fact, that also seems true of the Torso Killer). And that's not just my opinion; it was the opinion of the experts consulted by Trevor Marriott. Chapman, on the other hand, didn't even have basic butchery skills.

Now, of course, you might argue that just because something hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it can't happen. However, you can apply just the same logic to the multiple killer hypothesis.

However, returning to Gordon's book, there may be additional factual information that's not present in Trow's book, and it may be that some of his alternative analysis is worth considering, so to be fair, it might be worth buying to get an opinion from a different viewpoint.

[Debra A]

My second question is if this wasn't a ripper crime is it coincidence that the uterus was removed, or does this add credence tothe argument that organs were being removed post-mortem?

Hi Alan,

The trunk had been separated at the 4th lumbar vertebra and all the pelvic viscera were missing, so, it may have been more by accident than design that the uterus was missing.

Also, the remains were recovered from two sites- an arm from the Thames, the trunk, and 2 weeks later a leg, from the foundation vaults of what was originally going to be an opera house.

[AlanG]

Thank you Debra.

Like I just said to the wife...I read a fair bit and have listened the podcasts. I heard a theory that the Uterus/organs may of been removed post mortem on the ripper victims in the morchery. Heard critics of that too...But then saw this similar case of missing organs and wondered...If the organ removal theory post-mortem is true then Jack is a completely different style of killer than if he did remove the organs himself.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

[John G]

Thank you Debra.

Like I just said to the wife...I read a fair bit and have listened the podcasts. I heard a theory that the Uterus/organs may of been removed post mortem on the ripper victims in the morchery. Heard critics of that too...But then saw this similar case of missing organs and wondered...If the organ removal theory post-mortem is true then Jack is a completely different style of killer than if he did remove the organs himself.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

Hello Alan,

Trevor Marriott argues that the organs were most likely removed in the mortuary. However, I believe he also concedes that the mortuary assistants would have lacked the necessary skill, so it would probably have to have been done by a doctor. That suggests some sort of medical conspiracy to me, I.e. involving organ trading, for which there is no evidence .

[Harry D]

I remember reading that the Torso Murder victims might have been high-class working girls rather than the Ripper victims, who weren't whores by trade but fell back on prostitution to make ends meet. Is this true? If so, I wonder if rather than a lone killer luring women to their deaths, they could've been part of a prostitution ring. When the girls had outlived their usefulness they were butchered and disposed of. Perhaps the man responsible for dumping the body the night of the Whitehall Mystery just happened to have a sick sense of humour?

[Debra A]

I remember reading that the Torso Murder victims might have been high-class working girls rather than the Ripper victims, who weren't whores by trade but fell back on prostitution to make ends meet. Is this true? If so, I wonder if rather than a lone killer luring women to their deaths, they could've been part of a prostitution ring. When the girls had outlived their usefulness they were butchered and disposed of. Perhaps the man responsible for dumping the body the night of the Whitehall Mystery just happened to have a sick sense of humour?

Hi Harry
The only one of the so called 'torso' victims (87-89) to be identified was Elizabeth Jackson. Elizabeth was a 25 year old homeless, 7 months pregnant, former prostitute who had been deserted by the father of her child was sleeping rough in the embankment and Battersea Park area. Her parents were both paupers living in the Chelsea workhouse, she had originally been in service but quit to hang around pubs and frequent the lodging houses around Turks Row. I would put her in a similar class to Catherine (Rose) Mylett, Frances Coles and Mary Jane Kelly, a lower class prostitute by choice over working.