The Whitehall Mystery

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

Was that a murder case? I'll check Trow's book tomorrow for the Tottenham case, but I seem to recall that the opinion was that she'd been murdered. Trevor Marriott has just provided an update to his latest book, which includes some fascinating insights from a forensic pathologist, including an opinion on the dismemberment cases.

Yes, I know about Trevor's book. I provided the pathologist with the material he based his conclusions on. I didn't provide anything other than the briefest of information relating to the four cases 87-89.
Dr Biggs more or less repeated what I have been telling Trevor for ages!

Dr Nancy Guildford performed an abortion on a woman who died as a consequence. Dr Guildford dismembered the victim's body, and dumped the remains in a river, going to great trouble to try and avoid the remains being identified, she then fled from the US to London to escape imminent arrest. She was extradited from Bow Street Magistrates Court to face trial in the US where she and her helpers were sent down for a considerable time.

[John G]

Yes, I know about Trevor's book. I provided the pathologist with the material he based his conclusions on. I didn't provide anything other than information relating to the four cases 87-89.
Dr Biggs more or less repeated what I have been telling Trevor for ages!

Dr Nancy Guildford performed an abortion on a woman who died as a consequence. Dr Guildford dismembered the victim's body, and dumped the remains in a river, going to great trouble to try and avoid the remains being identified, she then fled from the US to London to escape imminent arrest. She was extradited from Bow Street Magistrates Court to face trial in the US where she and her helpers were sent down for a considerable time.

Thanks for this. It's certainty interesting what Dr Biggs said about the JtR victims and the difficulty with drawing firm conclusions. I have a feeling that there was originally thought to be two Tottenham victims, but they then decided they were the same victim. But I'll check.

[John G]

Hello Debra,

Dr Lloyd believed that the body parts found in Alfred Mews, Fitzroy Square and King's Cross station all came from the same individual: Fitzroy Square was the location constantly patrolled by the police. Dr Lloyd was initially quoted as saying two different bodies were involved, but then he retracted and said one. Moreover, a number of the body parts appeared slightly crushed, as if they'd been piled on top of one another-these were similar characteristics to the 1873 Torso: see Trow, 2011.

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

Dr Lloyd believed that the body parts found in Alfred Mews, Fitzroy Square and King's Cross station all came from the same individual: Fitzroy Square was the location constantly patrolled by the police. Dr Lloyd was initially quoted as saying two different bodies were involved, but then he retracted and said one. Moreover, a number of the body parts appeared slightly crushed, as if they'd been piled on top of one another-these were similar characteristics to the 1873 Torso: see Trow, 2011.

Hi John. Thanks.

Human remains (an arm and two feet) were also found a little earlier in Mornington Crescent. This is the other Tottenham case I referred to. Those remains were judged to be anatomical specimens and were ordered to be buried, by the coroner.

The case you cite in your post is the case the where the coroner's jury found that the death was not a natural death and that an abortion had been procured or attempted.

Evidence was given about both cases in the same hearing.

For the jury to include the mention of abortion as a contributory factor to the death there must have been some evidence that was the case.

[John G]

Hi John. Thanks.

Human remains (an arm and two feet) were also found a little earlier in Mornington Crescent. This is the other Tottenham case I referred to. Those remains were judged to be anatomical specimens and were ordered to be buried, by the coroner.

The case you cite in your post is the case the where the coroner's jury found that the death was not a natural death and that an abortion had been procured or attempted.

Evidence was given about both cases in the same hearing.

For the jury to include the mention of abortion as a contributory factor to the death there must have been some evidence that was the case.

Hi Debra,

Having read Dr Biggs' review of the evidence in some of these cases, I'm having serious doubts as to the extent to which we can rely on the opinions of Victorian GPs. In fact, Dr Bond concluded that Rose Mylett hadn't been murdered, whilst several other doctors disagreed, again emphasizing the need for caution. Moreover, didn't Dr Lloyd state that he was unable to determine any cause of death? In that case, I would argue that the jury verdict was capricious and cannot remotely be relied upon: this was not unusual for Victorian juries; in the Wiliam Bury case, the jury found him guilty and then, initially, recommended mercy on the grounds of the contradictory medical testimony, I.e as to cause of death!

To my mind, if the intention was to cover up an abortion why go to so much trouble disguising the identity of the victim? And, more crucially, why not just dump the body parts in the Thames? In fact, disposing of some of the parts in a location almost constantly observed by the police (the building that the remains were placed in front of was also a military drill hall) seems, in the abortion scenario, an absolutely crazy thing to do.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Debra,

Having read Dr Biggs' review of the evidence in some of these cases, I'm having serious doubts as to the extent to which we can rely on the opinions of Victorian GPs. In fact, Dr Bond concluded that Rose Mylett hadn't been murdered, whilst several other doctors disagreed, again emphasizing the need for caution. Moreover, didn't Dr Lloyd state that he was unable to determine any cause of death? In that case, I would argue that the jury verdict was capricious and cannot remotely be relied upon: this was not unusual for Victorian juries; in the Wiliam Bury case, the jury found him guilty and then, initially, recommended mercy on the grounds of the contradictory medical testimony, I.e as to cause of death!

To my mind, if the intention was to cover up an abortion why go to so much trouble disguising the identity of the victim? And, more crucially, why not just dump the body parts in the Thames? In fact, disposing of some of the parts in a location almost constantly observed by the police (the building that the remains were placed in front of was also a military drill hall) seems, in the abortion scenario, an absolutely crazy thing to do.

Hi John

If you remove the identity of a victim then you inhibit the subsequent police investigation into what happened to that victim and therby tracing known friends, and associates etc etc which might lead to finding the real truth.

You mentioned jury verdicts, and you are right many of these murder verdicts have now proved to be questionable

With Victorian doctors you are right again, much of what they suggested was nothing more than guesswork

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Hi John

If you remove the identity of a victim then you inhibit the subsequent police investigation into what happened to that victim and therby tracing known friends, and associates etc etc which might lead to finding the real truth.

You mentioned jury verdicts, and you are right many of these murder verdicts have now proved to be questionable

With Victorian doctors you are right again, much of what they suggested was nothing more than guesswork

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the reply, and thanks once again for the book update. As I noted on the other thread, I found the opinions of Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist, absolutely fascinating and, yes, it does undermine the opinion of the Victorian GPs. And I agree with you about jury verdicts: The William Bury case proves just how capricious and unreliable jury's could be and, as I noted, the jury in the Tottenham Torso case were of the opinion that the victim had probably died following an abortion, even though the medical opinion was that cause of death couldn't be determined.

I've also mentioned the Rose Mylett case. Despite the fact that four doctors were convinced she'd been murdered, Dr Robert Anderson, who disagreed, insisted Dr Bond give an opinion. Incredibly, he decided it was not a case of murder. I believe the coroner, the redoubtable Wynne Baxter, was pretty scathing of Bond's opinion. Nonetheless, that didn't prevent Anderson still insisting, in The Lighter Side of My Official Life, that it was a case of death by natural causes! I think that says a lot about his questionable judgment.

Regarding the Torso cases, as I've argued before I believe several of them can be linked by signature characteristic. Thus, in the Tottenham Torso case, 1884, we have body parts left in an area almost constantly observed by the police, during a change of shift, and near to a military drill hall. This was a huge risk, and completely unnecessary if the objective was simply to dispose of the body; this could have been achieved by throwing the body parts into the Thames.

Similarly with the Whitehall Mystery, we have body parts left in the darkened catacombs of the under-construction Scotland Yard building: this may also have involved scaling a 9ft fence, whilst carrying a human trunk.

The Pinchin Street Torso was placed between 2 drunks, possibly by the same arches that Schwartz claimed to have run to on the night of Stride's murder. The victim may also have been killed on the anniversary of Annie Chapman's death. Incredibly, the name "Lipski" was written in large chalk letters on a black paling opposite the arch.

I think it reasonable to conclude that the murderer was an attention-seeker, with a macabre sense of humour. And someone who was prepared to take huge risks in order to taunt, and humiliate, the Metropolitan Police.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi John. Thanks.

For the jury to include the mention of abortion as a contributory factor to the death there must have been some evidence that was the case.

Hi Debs
And vice versa where murder verdicts were returned, when an abortion or some other medical operation was an attributable factor.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
And vice versa where murder verdicts were returned, when an abortion or some other medical operation was an attributable factor.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor, yes, I agree, there must have been a definite reason why the doctors ruled out abortion in the case of Elizabeth Jackson, despite her being heavily pregnant. It was because there was no evidence that an abortion had taken place and all evidence pointed to the foeutus being removed after death. Abortions were not abdominal operations, they involved internal procedures done via the vagina and entering the uterus through the cervix or applying violence directly to the abdomen or administering something orally. Elizabeth showed no signs of having given birth and they were looking for all the correct signs in the vagina, cervix etc.

If I had known the material I passed on to the pathologist was to included in an update of your book I would have given him much fuller notes. As it is, it now appears in print in your book that the doctors didn't explain why they thought the Rainham victim would have been unable to conceive, when in fact they did explain, it's just that I didn't included it in the notes.

Also, as I mentioned to you in an email; medical jurisprudence books of the 1880s define a 'virgin uterus' as that of a woman who is not, nor has been previously, pregnant, not that of a woman who hasn't had sex. So, Dr Biggs comments on that in relation to the Rainham case are irrelevant.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor, yes, I agree, there must have been a definite reason why the doctors ruled out abortion in the case of Elizabeth Jackson, despite her being heavily pregnant. It was because there was no evidence that an abortion had taken place and all evidence pointed to the foeutus being removed after death. Abortions were not abdominal operations, they involved internal procedures done via the vagina and entering the uterus through the cervix or applying violence directly to the abdomen or administering something orally. Elizabeth showed no signs of having given birth and they were looking for all the correct signs in the vagina, cervix etc.

If I had known the material I passed on to the pathologist was to included in an update of your book I would have given him much fuller notes. As it is, it now appears in print in your book that the doctors didn't explain why they thought the Rainham victim would have been unable to conceive, when in fact they did explain, it's just that I didn't included it in the notes.

Also, as I mentioned to you in an email; medical jurisprudence books of the 1880s define a 'virgin uterus' as that of a woman who is not, nor has been previously, pregnant, not that of a woman who hasn't had sex. So, Dr Biggs comments on that in relation to the Rainham case are irrelevant.

Debs
High insight is a valuable commodity. But we ought to be thankful for the time he has taken to assess and evaluate the material relative to the Torsos, but in particular not forgetting the Whitechapel murders, which I hope will now allow researchers to look at the medical evidence previously relied on in a different light, or am I being a tad optimistic?

[Debra A]

Debs
High insight is a valuable commodity. But we ought to be thankful for the time he has taken to assess and evaluate the material relative to the Torsos, but in particular not forgetting the Whitechapel murders, which I hope will now allow researchers to look at the medical evidence previously relied on in a different light, or am I being a tad optimistic?

Yes, Trevor, but it's only valuable if the professional is given all the information available to make a judgement.
I am grateful for his comments, I am very pleased with his conclusions. As I have been saying for years, there is no evidence that connects all these cases as one thing or the other- they aren't all victims of abortion gone wrong, or anatomical specimens as you suggested and your pathologist thought was the least likely. He also suggests dismemberment to cover murder the most likely scenario, murder, which you have refused to believe in the past, preferring to believe the jury wrong when they brought in a verdict of murder in two of the torso cases.

There was a time when some posters believed that one of JTR's methods was to remove flaps of skin from the abdomen and this made what he did 'unique' and I believe it was me who first mentioned that Elizabeth Jackson also had the same flaps of skin removed from her abdomen and asked where that left us in terms of Jack's uniqueness.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trevor, but it's only valuable if the professional is given all the information available to make a judgement.
I am grateful for his comments, I am very pleased with his conclusions. As I have been saying for years, there is no evidence that connects all these cases as one thing or the other- they aren't all victims of abortion gone wrong, or anatomical specimens as you suggested and your pathologist thought was the least likely. He also suggests dismemberment to cover murder the most likely scenario, murder, which you have refused to believe in the past, preferring to believe the jury wrong when they brought in a verdict of murder in two of the torso cases.

There was a time when some posters believed that one of JTR's methods was to remove flaps of skin from the abdomen and this made what he did 'unique' and I believe it was me who first mentioned that Elizabeth Jackson also had the same flaps of skin removed from her abdomen and asked where that left us in terms of Jack's uniqueness.

To be honest I dont think his conclusions would have been any different, and its still open for everyone to believe what they want they want to believe if it suits their purpose, or reject it if it doesn't.

You have set your stall out, I have mine thats why we have agreed to accept the name change from The Whitechapel Murders to The Whitechapel Torso Mysteries, simply because they cannot conclusively be proved to be as a direct result of murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

I have found an old thread on the Tottenham Torso case, which includes a newspaper clipping. The medical evidence was that it was impossible to determine cause of death, which means that the opinion of the jury, that the victim probably died as the consequence of an abortion, cannot be relied upon. In fact, it was clearly capricious.

As I noted in my earlier post, the abortion argument makes no sense. In such circumstances the body parts could have been thrown in the Thames, rather than the reckless alternative that was taken. The organs were also missing, as with most of the Torso cases. It was suggested that this could have been to disguise the cause of death; well, if that was the case, an illegal abortion makes no sense at all, as the only other sensible verdict would surely be wilful murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have found an old thread on the Tottenham Torso case, which includes a newspaper clipping. The medical evidence was that it was impossible to determine cause of death, which means that the opinion of the jury, that the victim probably died as the consequence of an abortion, cannot be relied upon. In fact, it was clearly capricious.

As I noted in my earlier post, the abortion argument makes no sense. In such circumstances the body parts could have been thrown in the Thames, rather than the reckless alternative that was taken. The organs were also missing, as with most of the Torso cases. It was suggested that this could have been to disguise the cause of death; well, if that was the case, an illegal abortion makes no sense at all, as the only other sensible verdict would surely be wilful murder.

But if you murder someone and want to get rid of the body by cutting it up why would remove the organs. You first remove the head then cut off the limbs. What are you left the trunk and limb. If a simple murder why open up the abdomen and remove organs. You are then left with with body parts that need to be disposed of.

Now you cant walk down the street with them all together, or risk putting them all in the same place. So the logical explanation is to parcel them up and take them away singularly and dispose of them in different places who is going to get stopped carrying a wrapped parcel down the road?

But the fact that abdomens were open up etc tends to show that some form of medical operation was performed on them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

But if you murder someone and want to get rid of the body by cutting it up why would remove the organs. You first remove the head then cut off the limbs. What are you left the trunk and limb. If a simple murder why open up the abdomen and remove organs. You are then left with with body parts that need to be disposed of.

Now you cant walk down the street with them all together, or risk putting them all in the same place. So the logical explanation is to parcel them up and take them away singularly and dispose of them in different places who is going to get stopped carrying a wrapped parcel down the road?

But the fact that abdomens were open up etc tends to show that some form of medical operation was performed on them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course, the organs could have been removed because the perpetrator was collecting trophies.