The Whitehall Mystery

[Debra A]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I believe, as a professional, his judgement on the knowledge of the
LVP doctors could not fail to be slightly altered if he hadn't believed they were assuming a woman was a virgin by describing her 'virgin uterus' -and a couple of other points he made relating to lack of information when it was the case that the information was in the LVP text, it just wasn't passed on to the pathologist.

The *'Whitechapel murders*-' are so called because they were all kept in the same police file marked as that. The police never tried to link all the murders within that file. The Pinchin St case is the only torso case in that file, the other torso cases were never referred to as 'Whitechapel Murders' modern day commentators have named them the 'torso murders' (the people like Mei Trow and R Michael Gordon who are the ones promoting them as a murder series and a murder series linked to JTR at that)
They were referred to originally as Mysteries - some papers claimed they were the work of the 'West End dissector' and similar names...that never caught on though.

[Debra A]

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.

The conclusion seems to have been arrived at because all the internal organs were missing. This is similar to Trevor's conclusions about Elizabeth Jackson-that because she had been pregnant then abortion must be the case but yet the jury at her inquest listened to Dr Bond and believed his detailed testimony on the condition of her vagina, cervix etc and his conclusions that she had not delivered a child-that it had been removed from her womb by an incision after her death.

[Debra A]

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

The only reason the word 'operation' is ever mentioned in these cases is because it refers to abortion as 'illegal operation'. Abortions didn't involve abdominal surgery.

[John G]

The conclusion seems to have been arrived at because all the internal organs were missing. This is similar to Trevor's conclusions about Elizabeth Jackson-that because she had been pregnant then abortion must be the case but yet the jury at her inquest listened to Dr Bond and believed his detailed testimony on the condition of her vagina, cervix etc and his conclusions that she had not delivered a child-that it had been removed from her womb by an incision after her death.

Hello Debra,

Thanks for your informative reply. I would point out that Trow does not believe that the Torso cases are linked to the Whitechapel murders, but part of a separate series. This is a theory I subscribe to. Gordon pursued his own bizarre agenda, believing that the Torso victims were not only linked to the Whitechapel murders, but that the perpetrator was George Chapman: That also makes no sense for all sorts of reasons, I.e. there has never been, as far as I'm aware, a single example of a violent killer evolving into a slow poisoner or vice versa.

It is clear that the Torso Murderer, and JtR have completely different signatures. JtR has been described as a lust murderer, which I think the Torso Killer certainly wasn't; I therefore believe that any suggestion they were the same killer is completely ludicrous. Professor Allison, in a forward to Trow's book, suggests that the display of body parts was a "central psychological signature". I agree, and believe this was done for shock value. I also believe that the killer had a macabre sense of humour and was taunting the police.

And clearly the Torso Murderer used dump sites; JtR didn't. The Torso Murderer tried to disguise the identity of his victims; JtR didn't. Trow also argued that the Torso Murders can be linked by the degree of skill that was demonstrated in the dismemberment, and the tools used. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Torso victims were of a very different social class to the Whitechapel victims.

As I've argued, the suggestion that these cases were abortions gone wrong makes no sense at all. If that were the case, there was no need to take such extreme risks as we see, for example, in the case of the Tottenham Torso, Pinchin Street and Whitehall. This was clearly a signature characteristic, as such risks were clearly completely unnecessary for the purpose of disposing of the body.

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

Thanks for your informative reply. I would point out that Trow does not believe that the Torso cases are linked to the Whitechapel murders, but part of a separate series. This is a theory I subscribe to. Gordon pursued his own bizarre agenda, believing that the Torso victims were not only linked to the Whitechapel murders, but that the perpetrator was George Chapman: That also makes no sense for all sorts of reasons, I.e. there has never been, as far as I'm aware, a single example of a violent killer evolving into a slow poisoner or vice versa.

It is clear that the Torso Murderer, and JtR have completely different signatures. JtR has been described as a lust murderer, which I think the Torso Killer certainly wasn't; I therefore believe that any suggestion they were the same killer is completely ludicrous. Professor Allison, in a forward to Trow's book, suggests that the display of body parts was a "central psychological signature". I agree, and believe this was done for shock value. I also believe that the killer had a macabre sense of humour and was taunting the police.

And clearly the Torso Murderer used dump sites; JtR didn't. The Torso Murderer tried to disguise the identity of his victims; JtR didn't. Trow also argued that the Torso Murders can be linked by the degree of skill that was demonstrated in the dismemberment, and the tools used. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Torso victims were of a very different social class to the Whitechapel victims.

As I've argued, the suggestion that these cases were abortions gone wrong makes no sense at all. If that were the case, there was no need to take such extreme risks as we see, for example, in the case of the Tottenham Torso, Pinchin Street and Whitehall. This was clearly a signature characteristic, as such risks were clearly unnecessary for the purpose of disposing of the body.

Thanks John,
I haven't read Trow's book, as I said at the beginning so thanks for the clarification on that.

From what I have read about the Tottenham case, Dr Lloyd stated
that the joints had been opened by a hatchett and no knife was used ( a saw was used to open up the chest) -that is different to the cases 87-89 where a knife and saw were used to open up the joints, although it could be argued that the killer swapped apparatus but retained the knowledge of joint separation that Drs Bond and Hebbert noted and Hebbert mentions in his lectures on the four cases. This was a skill he recognised and used to conclude the four cases 87-89 were all done by the same hand.

I'm not sure we can assume all these women were of a higher class than the Whitechapel victims. As I said earlier, Elizabeth Jackson was definitely of the unfortunate class, and from observations about her garters it seems the Rainham victim may also have been. The Whitehall victim probably was a more 'fashionable' victim, which might suggest a high-end prostitute, I agree.
The bracelet type tattoo on the Tottenham case was something associated with prostitution as far as I can recall from earlier research ( I remember mentioning this to AP Wolf somewhere) although what class it denotes is difficult to say as a high class prostitute could soon fall to the same depths as a lower class one if MJK's story is to be believed?

I don't know what other victims were included, I think you mentioned one of the 70s torsos? What evidence was there of her class? I forget the details, although I remember the same skill of disarticulation of the joints was suggested there too?

[John G]

Hello Debra,

In respect of the Tottenham Torso, Dr Lloyd's opinion was that she was dissected by "someone skilled, but certainly not for the purposes of anatomy." And, as I noted earlier, Trow points out that, in this case, many of the body parts appeared to be slightly crushed, I.e by being piled on top of one another, like some of the 1873 finds. Like virtually all of the Torso victims dismemberment was carried out soon after death. Unfortunately, there was far less detail reported than the earlier Battersea Torso, so ultimate conclusions will have to be somewhat speculative.

In respect of the earlier Battersea Torso, there was a wound to the right temple, which might point to murder. According to Dr Kempster, a knife and very fine saw was used for the dismemberment, the same as the latter cases. There were three cuts to the head, I.e one to remove the scalp and face, the others probably the result of a blunt instrument attack.

Dr Kempster was of the opinion that death was probably the result of two extremely violent blows to the head, delivered in rapid succession. In fact, both Drs Kempster and Haydon were of the opinion that the body was probably cut up whilst still warm.

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

In respect of the Tottenham Torso, Dr Lloyd's opinion was that she was dissected by "someone skilled, but certainly not for the purposes of anatomy." And, as I noted earlier, Trow points out that, in this case, many of the body parts appeared to be slightly crushed, I.e by being piled on top of one another, like some of the 1873 finds. Like virtually all of the Torso victims dismemberment was carried out soon after death.

In respect of the earlier Battersea Torso, there was a wound to the right temple, which might point to murder. According to Dr Kempster, a knife and very fine saw was used for the dismemberment, the same as the latter cases. There were three cuts to the head, I.e one to remove the scalp and face, the others probably the result of a blunt instrument attack.

Dr Kempster was of the opinion that death was probably the result of two extremely violent blows to the head, delivered in rapid succession. In fact, both Drs Kempster and Haydon were of the opinion that the body was probably cut up whilst still warm.

Thanks John,
I remember some of that now with you mentioning the blow to the temple. That would lend weight to a violent death.

Incidentally, I remember the face was displayed in the mortuary set over a wooden hat block, to see if anyone recognised the woman. They were disappointed when no one did, and it was Dr Bond who pointed out that it was an individual's muscle tone and bone structure that determined how a face looked, and that setting it over a smooth block wouldn't necessarily aid identification.
Just throwing that in as I like Dr Bond.

[RockySullivan]

The consensus that the torso killer and the ripper are no the same is based on one of the doctors opinions that the ripper was less skilled than the torso killer? Is this right? I would think one would have to be quite skilled to remove organs quickly the way the ripper worked. And the fact that torso removed same organ is enough for me to believe they are the same. I find it hard to believe Scotland Yard would consider them different killers. Perhaps it was something they wanted to keep from the public.

Why would torso dump the Jackson with her underwear that Le fisher on it? Was it because he thought it would throw police off? He didn't care about identification? What was the reason?

[Rosella]

I don't think he cared about identification. However, it could be an indication of a very black sense of humour, a connection between the Thames river and the body parts of his victims. "Going in the Thames, aren't you! Well let's see who fishes the bits and pieces of you out!"

[John G]

In respect of MO, there are numerous differences between the Torso Murderer and JtR. For example, the Torso Killer was highly proficient at disarticulating body parts; JtR wasnt. Now, of course, this doesn't mean that the Torso Murderer was surgically skilled; quite the opposite. Dr Hebbert, referring to the Rainham corpse, and the precise cuts, stated: "I do not think that any anatomist could have done the work as well, as they are not constantly operating, while a butcher is almost daily cutting up carcases. It may be argued that such skill would be gained by a hunter, as either are in the habit of rapidly and skilfully separating limbs and of cutting up a trunk into several parts."

Therefore, it could be that JtR demonstrated surgical skills in respect of removing body parts- Trevor Marriott's experts are divided on this issue-but lacked proficient butchery skills.

JtR operated exclusively in Whitechapel and the immediate area, whereas the Torso killer operated throughout London. Crucially, the Torso killer used dump sites and, by decapitating his victims, successfully disguised their identity-only one Torso victim was identified. JtR on the other hand made no attempt to disguise the identity of his victims, nor did he attempt to relocate the bodies, I.e by using dump sites.

And, of course, the Torso Murderer operated over a much longer period: his first victim could have been as early as 1873.

[Debra A]

Hi John G
Speaking of Trevor's experts- In the revised version of Trevor's book, Dr Biggs has this to say about Hebbert trying to link the series of 'torso' murders 1887-89 by the mode of disarticulation, never mind including the much earlier ones:

"They [Hebbert and Bond] also seem to think that the method of disarticulation was 'identical' to the previous case. If you look at a series of unrelated dismembered bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them. This does not mean you can conclude that they were carried out in the same way / with the same tool(s) / by the same person(s). When disposing of a body people (even without prior knowledge or instruction) tend to adopt very similar strategies for dividing up the body to make it more manageable for concealment / transportation. The finished results end up looking very similar!"

[John G]

Hi Debra,

Thanks for the reply. Of course, Dr Biggs also expressed a view that the Torso mysteries and the Whitechapel murders were probably not connected because of the "vastly different MO."

It also seems to me that these type of crimes were much less common in the Victorian period than today, i.e. there seems to be no similar cases between 1874 and 1884 , or 1884 and 1887. Moreover, it may be possible to link the victims by MO or signature, i.e by considering the unnecessary risks taken by the perpetrator when disposing of the body parts.

[Trevor Marriott]

In respect of MO, there are numerous differences between the Torso Murderer and JtR. For example, the Torso Killer was highly proficient at disarticulating body parts; JtR wasnt. Now, of course, this doesn't mean that the Torso Murderer was surgically skilled; quite the opposite. Dr Hebbert, referring to the Rainham corpse, and the precise cuts, stated: "I do not think that any anatomist could have done the work as well, as they are not constantly operating, while a butcher is almost daily cutting up carcases. It may be argued that such skill would be gained by a hunter, as either are in the habit of rapidly and skilfully separating limbs and of cutting up a trunk into several parts."

Therefore, it could be that JtR demonstrated surgical skills in respect of removing body parts- Trevor Marriott's experts are divided on this issue-but lacked proficient butchery skills.

JtR operated exclusively in Whitechapel and the immediate area, whereas the Torso killer operated throughout London. Crucially, the Torso killer used dump sites and, by decapitating his victims, successfully disguised their identity-only one Torso victim was identified. JtR on the other hand made no attempt to disguise the identity of his victims, nor did he attempt to relocate the bodies, I.e by using dump sites.

And, of course, the Torso Murderer operated over a much longer period: his first victim could have been as early as 1873.

Hi John
Can I try to put one matter straight and this is with regards to the constant reference to The Torso Murderer on this site. Dr Biggs only comments on the Torsos, from around the Ripper time period. From his comments we can now adduce that not all of the torsos were attributable to death by murder despite the coroners court verdicts. I am sure this same would apply to the other many torsos found over the years.

As was previously stated these torsos should perhaps now be referred to as The Torso Mysteries and not The Torso Murders.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Hi John
Can I try to put one matter straight and this is with regards to the constant reference to The Torso Murderer on this site. Dr Biggs only comments on the Torsos, from around the Ripper time period. From his comments we can now adduce that not all of the torsos were attributable to death by murder despite the coroners court verdicts. I am sure this same would apply to the other many torsos found over the years.

As was previously stated these torsos should perhaps now be referred to as The Torso Mysteries and not The Torso Murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

But doesn't Dr Biggs say that it cannot be determined whether the Torso victims were murdered or not? In my opinion, it could be argued that the risk the killer took in disposing of some of the body parts-extreme and completely unnecessary risks in some cases -points to a signature killer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

But doesn't Dr Biggs say that it cannot be determined whether the Torso victims were murdered or not? In my opinion, it could be argued that the risk the killer took in disposing of some of the body parts-extreme and completely unnecessary risks in some cases -points to a signature killer.

Exactly, so that is why the renaming to The Thames Torso Mysteries, instead of researchers readily accepting them as murders. So I think it wrong to talk about a signature killer. I personally believe that the majority of body parts found were from victims who were not murdered but died under different circumstances.

Lets be realistic if a killer like the Ripper is going to murder a victim in the street then they are not going to hang around to cut up the body and dispose of it.

If a killer goes with a female to their own abode and then kills he would simply leave after the act, leaving the body behind. He is not going to risk cutting it up and taking it away a bit at a time.

But if a female subjects herself to some back street medical procedure and that takes place at the address of the amateur medic and that goes wrong and she dies. Then there would be an urgent need for the body to be disposed of would there not. So cut it up, parcel it up, and go throw it in the Thames or dump it somewhere out of the way a bit at a time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk