The Whitehall Mystery

[Abby Normal]

John G:

First of all there is absolutely no forensic evidence that any of the Torso victims were even murdered...

That is not entirely true, since there were blows to the temple of one of the victims (Battersea 1873), blows that were thought to be the cause of death.

And as Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist points out, the MO is "vastly different" from that of JtR: see Marriott, 2013. These are dismemberment cases, which according to Dr Biggs are not uncommon, the purpose usually being to conceal a homicide-something JtR was unconcerned about.

Yes. The purpose of dismemberment is normally to conceal a homicide and to facilitate transport of the victim without detection. But in the torso case, we need not speculate that the killer was anxious to hide what he had done. Instead, he spent a lot of time and effort to DISPLAY his work, taking immense risks as he did so. So the notion that he tried to conceal things is something we should not speculate about here. If anything, he tried to conceal the identity of the victims, but the concealment factor goes no further than that. This was seemingly a killer who sought attention. It was not the other way around. Therefore, the two series do not differ in this context - quite the opposite. Both series ensured that there was full attention, making the series very related in that respect.

And, as I've noted before, the Torso perpetrator used dump sites, whereas JtR didn't.

That would have been ruled by the circumstances. We must assume that the torso killer had a place to dismember his victims, and unless he wanted to be found out on account of the smell, he simply MUST dump his bodies. The Ripper could hardly carry his victimīs bodies with him. So the difference here lies not in what the intentions were when it came to the handling of the bodies, but instead in how the surrounding circumstances ruled the outcome.

He also operated in a different geographical area to JtR-only one of the victims was found in Whitechapel.

To be fair, we only know that he scattered the remains in large parts of London. For all we know, all of the victims could have been picked up on Pinchin Street. Not that I think they were, but it goes to show how we canīt speak in generalizing terms about an "area of operation" that very much differed from the Ripperīs when it comes to the torso killer. If anything, I find it interesting that a victim was deliberately placed in the heart of the Ripper territory.

Of course, it is also very likely that the Torso perpetrator had access to transport as well as secure accommodation to dismember the victims-on fact, I've speculated that he may have had access to a boat. JtR was not a commuter killer,so probably didn't have access to transport. I also doubt he had access to secure accommodation.

A slight distinction: The Ripper KILLINGS were reasonably not commuter killings - as for the killer, if he was identical with the torso killer, then he was probably a commuter killer too. These two matters are - two matters. If we are to say that the Ripper could not have committed commuter killings, we would be dead wrong. And looking at things practically, if the Ripper was also the torso killer, then he may have killed out in the streets for shock value and thrill value (something you readily accept on behalf of the torso man), and then he could have performed his torso murders in a bolthole somewhere. If so, why would he not scatter those remains all over London, in order to throw the police off his trail?

My belief is that the Torso Murderer, if indeed he was a murderer, was a thrill seeker. That's why he took substantial and unnecessary risks. Evidence also suggests that he had a macabre sense of humour, and was effectively taunting the police, perhaps mocking their failure to catch him.

So a twin soul versus the Ripper in many respects...?

The fact that mutilation occurred with the Torso victims is clearly incidental. I mean, how could you dismember a body without mutilating it? Conversely, the mutilations in the JtR cases were clearly fundamental to the killer's signature.

The abdominal area was cut open and organs were missing in a number of cases. It goes without saying that this was not something you needed to do in order to dismember a body. But it was nevertheless performed.

Should we speculate that this was not fundamental to the torso killers signature?

There are major differences inbetween the two series. That should make us speculate that they may have been by different hands.

But there are also major likenesses! Same town, same time, same type of victims, same theatralic ingredients, same shock value, same 100 per cent certainty that the deeds would not go unnoticed, same opening of abdomens (down to the exact method in one case), same loss of organs.

We should not say that the two must have been one and the same. That would be ludicruous. But this discussion plays out against a background where it has been a taboo to even breath the possibility. Anybody who has suggested a connection has been pooh-poohed over the years, and much discussion has been vociferously drenched by naysayers. I feel the discussion MUST be had, since there IS a real chance that the two killers were identical. And if they were, then the differences have a lot to say about the type of killer we would be dealing with. Meaning that there is a path of research open to us that we should absolutely not close down.

post of the year!

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Doesn't your forensic expert, Dr Biggs, state that body dismemberment is usually undertaken for the purpose of concealing a homicide?

Yes but he doesn't discount the other option of the need to dispose of a body when an illegal back street medical procedure went wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

First of all there is absolutely no forensic evidence that any of the Torso victims were even murdered, therefore, in my opinion to try and link these victims to the Whitechapel murders is wildly speculative.

And as Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist points out, the MO is "vastly different" from that of JtR: see Marriott, 2013. These are dismemberment cases, which according to Dr Biggs are not uncommon, the purpose usually being to conceal a homicide-something JtR was unconcerned about.

And, as I've noted before, the Torso perpetrator used dump sites, whereas JtR didn't. He also operated in a different geographical area to JtR-only one of the victims was found in Whitechapel. Of course, it is also very likely that the Torso perpetrator had access to transport as well as secure accommodation to dismember the victims-on fact, I've speculated that he may have had access to a boat. JtR was not a commuter killer,so probably didn't have access to transport. I also doubt he had access to secure accommodation.

My belief is that the Torso Murderer, if indeed he was a murderer, was a thrill seeker. That's why he took substantial and unnecessary risks. Evidence also suggests that he had a macabre sense of humour, and was effectively taunting the police, perhaps mocking their failure to catch him.

The fact that mutilation occurred with the Torso victims is clearly incidental. I mean, how could you dismember a body without mutilating it? Conversely, the mutilations in the JtR cases were clearly fundamental to the killer's signature.

HI JohnG
A thrill seeker? Do you mean a thrill Killer?

Thrill Kill serial killers are like the Zodiac, Son of Sam, even Monster of Florence. Their main motivation is to kill for the sheer exhilaration of it with little to no connotation of sexual contact and ABSOLUTELY NO post mortem interest in the bodies, let alone post mortem mutilation. And since they commonly target couples, there is probably an element of extreme jealousy (hatred-mad at the world)that they themselves are losers with women.

Sure, with any serial killer there is going to be some element of thrill, but the important thing is to see what is the main motivation and what are secondary. I believe secondary motivation with the ripper and torso man do involve the thrill of taunting and shocking the police/public. But the main motivation, the signature, the psychology of why both the ripper and torso man killed was post mortem mutilation-specifically the cutting up and into and organ removal of a womans body.

Your getting discombobulated with the dismemberment part-its just part of MO (for ease of disposal), not signature.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

First of all there is absolutely no forensic evidence that any of the Torso victims were even murdered, therefore, in my opinion to try and link these victims to the Whitechapel murders is wildly speculative.

And as Dr Biggs, the forensic pathologist points out, the MO is "vastly different" from that of JtR: see Marriott, 2013. These are dismemberment cases, which according to Dr Biggs are not uncommon, the purpose usually being to conceal a homicide-something JtR was unconcerned about.

And, as I've noted before, the Torso perpetrator used dump sites, whereas JtR didn't. He also operated in a different geographical area to JtR-only one of the victims was found in Whitechapel. Of course, it is also very likely that the Torso perpetrator had access to transport as well as secure accommodation to dismember the victims-on fact, I've speculated that he may have had access to a boat. JtR was not a commuter killer,so probably didn't have access to transport. I also doubt he had access to secure accommodation.

My belief is that the Torso Murderer, if indeed he was a murderer, was a thrill seeker. That's why he took substantial and unnecessary risks. Evidence also suggests that he had a macabre sense of humour, and was effectively taunting the police, perhaps mocking their failure to catch him.

The fact that mutilation occurred with the Torso victims is clearly incidental. I mean, how could you dismember a body without mutilating it? Conversely, the mutilations in the JtR cases were clearly fundamental to the killer's signature.

clearly you can see the difference between dismemberment and dissection?!?

[Fisherman]

John G: Thanks for the Reply.

You are ever so welcome, John!

Did Lechmere have access to any premises, where he could dismember bodies undisturbed?

That is written in the stars. However, at the time of the Pinchin Street torso affair, Maria Louisa Forsdykes (Lechmereīs mother) husband was very seriously ill. He died in December that year. That means that he may well have been hospitalized in September, which in itīs turn opens up the possibility that the dwellings on 147 Cable Street were deserted for periods of time. I am not opposed to the idea that Lechmere may have taken advantage of this. The Pinchin Street torso was apparently carried manutally to the dumping site, which means that we should not look for the place where it had been kept very far from the dumping site. 147 Cable fits eminently in this context.

Do you think it possible that the Torso perpetrator had access to a boat?

Possible? Yes, of course it is possible.

Of course, this would be an ideal place to dismember bodies, whilst remaining undisturbed. It would also explain why some of the body parts were thrown in the Thames and the choice of Liz Jackson as a victim: I believe she was living rough on the embankment. Might it also be the means by which he approached the New Scotland Yard building, which was also being built on the embankment.

Much of the building material for the New Scotland Yard was shipped on the Thames, thatīs correct. And yes, it is a possibility. But any place would do, seeing as he had access to a horse and cart, going by how he scattered the remains.

[John G]

HI JohnG
A thrill seeker? Do you mean a thrill Killer?

Thrill Kill serial killers are like the Zodiac, Son of Sam, even Monster of Florence. Their main motivation is to kill for the sheer exhilaration of it with little to no connotation of sexual contact and ABSOLUTELY NO post mortem interest in the bodies, let alone post mortem mutilation. And since they commonly target couples, there is probably an element of extreme jealousy (hatred-mad at the world)that they themselves are losers with women.

Sure, with any serial killer there is going to be some element of thrill, but the important thing is to see what is the main motivation and what are secondary. I believe secondary motivation with the ripper and torso man do involve the thrill of taunting and shocking the police/public. But the main motivation, the signature, the psychology of why both the ripper and torso man killed was post mortem mutilation-specifically the cutting up and into and organ removal of a womans body.

Your getting discombobulated with the dismemberment part-its just part of MO (for ease of disposal), not signature.

I think you're drawing wildly speculative conclusions in order to prove a tenuous theory. Can you provide any medical evidence that any of these victims were murdered? You refer to post mortem mutilation, but as Trevor has pointed out it could simply be a case of botched medical procedures. And, as Debra has pointed out, the organs may have simply dropped out rather than have been specifically targeted.

The closest example to a Whitechapel murder is the Pinchin Street Torso but, as Swanson pointed out, even here the killer did not target the genital area. That represents a clear difference in signature with JtR: as Keppel pointed out, JtR targeted the genital area of all of the victims he attributed to him, with the exception of Stride, including Tabram. That's why he concluded that he was a lust killer! In fact, have you read what Dr Phillips said at the inquest? His opinion was that the Pinchin Street mutilations were undertaken for the purpose of disposing of the body, which is what I suggested.

Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologist, has also stated that the MO is "vastly different" from that of JtR. And as he's a medical professional from a relevant discipline I'm inclined to accept that view.

You have also suggested that these types of crimes are rare. So what about Smith? Mackenzie? Austin? Do you think they were also killed by the same man?

[Abby Normal]

I think you're drawing wildly speculative conclusions in order to prove a theory. Can you provide any medical evidence that any of these victims were murdered? You refer to post mortem mutilation, but has Trevor has pointed out it could simply be a case of botched medical procedures. And, as Debra has pointed out, the organs may have simply dropped out rather than have been specifically targeted.

Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologist, has stated that the MO is "vastly different" from that of JtR. And as he's a medical professional I'm inclined to accept that view.

Hi JohnG
No worries. Believe me, I see the differences and am not really trying to prove a theory. As a matter of fact, as Ive stated before I DO think that more than likely that the ripper and torso man were different men-the only theory (if you could even call it that) is that I see many similiarities between the two-same victimogy, same time, place and deliberate shock value- and the sig appears to be similar in my opinion.

And as Fisherman said, in the past it seemed like even bringing up the idea that there are similarities and possibly being the same man would more often than not bring down unwarranted ridicule and scorn.

I just think that there are many similarities and the POSSIBILITY that they could be the same man (or at least some of them) warrents further research and discussion, that's all.

[Debra A]

I fail to see, however, how you can have access to the original research and miss out on a severing of a body...?

I don't understand what you mean by this, Fisherman. I simply forgot how many pieces the Rainham torso was divided into (it's been ten years since I first read Hebberts work on them in 'a system of legal medicine') but knew there was a pelvic divide, which Trow missed, so mentioned it.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra
wasn't the Gill murder case involving a boy and the suspect was barrett a milkman or something?Also, if im not mistaken the boy had abdominal mutilations and organ removal similar to the ripper?

Hi Abby,
Yes he was a young boy and from the nature of some specific mutilation there seems to have been a sexual element as well as his body being dismembered for disposal. Barrett was acquitted of the murder.

[Debra A]

Hi JohnG
No worries. Believe me, I see the differences and am not really trying to prove a theory. As a matter of fact, as Ive stated before I DO think that more than likely that the ripper and torso man were different men-the only theory (if you could even call it that) is that I see many similiarities between the two-same victimogy, same time, place and deliberate shock value- and the sig appears to be similar in my opinion.

And as Fisherman said, in the past it seemed like even bringing up the idea that there are similarities and possibly being the same man would more often than not bring down unwarranted ridicule and scorn.

I just think that there are many similarities and the POSSIBILITY that they could be the same man (or at least some of them) warrents further research and discussion, that's all.

I agree, I don't think there is any harm in exploring the possibilities and see where it leads. After all we now have two lots of red tape where we once had a rose tattoo!
Elizabeth's genitals were targeted in the same way Mary Jane Kelly's were. The description of the damage in that area is so similar.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
No worries. Believe me, I see the differences and am not really trying to prove a theory. As a matter of fact, as Ive stated before I DO think that more than likely that the ripper and torso man were different men-the only theory (if you could even call it that) is that I see many similiarities between the two-same victimogy, same time, place and deliberate shock value- and the sig appears to be similar in my opinion.

And as Fisherman said, in the past it seemed like even bringing up the idea that there are similarities and possibly being the same man would more often than not bring down unwarranted ridicule and scorn.

I just think that there are many similarities and the POSSIBILITY that they could be the same man (or at least some of them) warrents further research and discussion, that's all.

Hi Abby,

Thanks. Yes, it's clearly important to debate these issues whilst keeping an open mind, although I'm sometimes as guilty as anyone in taking intransigent positions!

I don't know if you saw my updated post but I referred to what Dr Phillips' stated at the Pinchin Street Torso inquest , i.e that the mutilations were probably undertaken for the purposes of disposing of the body. And Swanson also noted that the perpetrator didn't target the genital area; of course, Keppel pointed out that JtR specifically targeted the breasts, genitalia and sexual organs of his victims, and categorized him as a lust killer (Keppel 2005)

However, I do believe that the all the victims from 1884 (the Tottenham Torso) onward were murdered. I also consider it possible that the earlier Putney and Battersea victims were part of the same series. Thus, many of the body parts of the Tottenham victim appeared slightly crushed, as if they'd been piled on top of one another: some of the 1873 finds exhibit similar characteristics.

I think that anyone who seeks to argue that the deaths were accidental has to explain why the perpetrator would go to such extreme risks when disposing of the body parts, especially when he could just have thrown them in the Thames. That suggests a clear signature characteristic, i.e that the perpetrator was a thrill killer, and also a thrill seeker!

As I've noted, I think we are dealing with a perpetrator with a macabre sense of humour, who took delight in shocking the public and humiliating the authorities, and who may have had access to a boat!

[Fisherman]

I don't understand what you mean by this, Fisherman. I simply forgot how many pieces the Rainham torso was divided into (it's been ten years since I first read Hebberts work on them in 'a system of legal medicine') but knew there was a pelvic divide, which Trow missed, so mentioned it.

I was referring to Trow, who had the same option to take part of the original evidence - and indeed ought to have done so - but nevertheless failed to get it right when it comes to the Rainham torso. In his book, the severing across the abdomen is forgotten in the sketch of the victim.
If any shadow falls on either of us, Debra, then it falls on me for not being clearer about this!

[John G]

I agree, I don't think there is any harm in exploring the possibilities and see where it leads. After all we now have two lots of red tape where we once had a rose tattoo!
Elizabeth's genitals were targeted in the same way Mary Jane Kelly's were. The description of the damage in that area is so similar.

But in the case of Liz Jackson wasn't the uterus damaged in order to remove a foetus? And were organs actually removed from Liz Jackson? In the case of Kelly the evidence suggests that they were pulled out by a perpetrator who exhibited no skill at all.

[Debra A]

I was referring to Trow, who had the same option to take part of the original evidence - and indeed ought to have done so - but nevertheless failed to get it right when it comes to the Rainham torso. In his book, the severing across the abdomen is forgotten in the sketch of the victim.
If any shadow falls on either of us, Debra, then it falls on me for not being clearer about this!

Ah, thanks Fisherman. I was speed reading too so that didn't help.

[Debra A]

But in the case of Liz Jackson wasn't the uterus damaged in order to remove a foetus? And were organs actually removed from Liz Jackson? In the case of Kelly the evidence suggests that they were pulled out by a perpetrator who exhibited no skill at all.

Yes, John. The uterus was opened with an incision and the foetus removed.
It's difficult to know whether organs were removed or 'lost' but I do find these two descriptions chillingly similar:

Mary Kelly-The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. ......... the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation, and part of the right buttock. The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched


Elizabeth Jackson-The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minusThe right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus[external organs of generation], and part of the skin of the right buttock.
Head and neck taken off opposite the 6th cervical vertebra.