The Whitehall Mystery

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
The torso cases must be assessed as separate cases, I'm sure you'd agree. Therefore we can definitely rule out abortion in the case of the Pinchin and Rainham St torsos as post mortems showed neither were pregnant.

Also, Elizabeth was heavily pregnant but NO abortion was performed on her. Abortion was a procedure which involved the use of an instrument through the vagina to open the cervix and break the waters in the uterus. It was never an abdominal 'operation'. Women who underwent this back street type abortion often died, yes, but they mostly died from the effects of peritonitis and blood poisoning (a similar death to Emma Smith's) many days after the procedure, often back at home.

In Elizabeth's case Bond and Hebbert were able to show that no abortion had taken place due to the condition of the vagina, cervix and uterus, which were all unharmed and in normal condition. This is how they were able to say Elizabeth had not yet delivered the child either, there was none of the stretching, tearing, abrasions and bruising of the vagina, cervix etc that happen during childbirth. All were intact.

Of the 87-89 cases, only the Whitehall case had the uterus missing and so could have been a victim of a failed abortion.

You bring abortion up in every torso discussion but never tailor your arguments to specific cases. No one here is denying abortion practices killed women but some need to read up more on how those deaths occurred and what an abortion entailed. It doesn't fit for 3 of these four cases.

It's possible Elizabeth may have been poisoned by someone trying to bring on a miscarriage. The organs used to detect poisons were missing.

Also, the term 'illegal operation' refers solely to abortions. Students and doctors didn't go around illegally whipping out tonsils and stuff!

Hi Debs
I am not a gynecologist and nor is anyone else on here so to comment on the likelihood of someone performing some abortion related operation on one of these women is wrong. We don't know how these back street abortionists carried out these illegal operations. But the opening of the abdominal cavities suggest something more than simple dismemberment for disposal after a simple murder.

Despite what Dr Biggs says, we do know that bodies and body parts were accessible to medical students at that time, we also know that it was the responsibility of those acquiring these specimens to dispose of them after. In the case of a body, that would necessitate the cost and trouble of a burial. So to save money it would be easy to cut the body up, parcel it up and dump it.

So i refer to a term used frequently by Dr Biggs "Anyhting is possible"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

Considering the Whitehall Torso. The Torso was discovered in a vault, deep into the foundations of the New Scotland Yard building. There was virtually no light and the workmen stated that the vault would have been extremely difficult to locate. The leg, foot and arm were buried and it required a dog to find them. Moreover, they must have been there longer than the Torso because of the rate of decomposition, suggesting the perpetrator had visited the site at least twice. He may also have climbed a 9ft fence to gain access.

The question therefore is this: if simple body disposal was the motive, i.e following an illegal operation, why go to such extreme lengths, with all the attendant risks, to discard the remains?

The answer is simple anyone found to be carrying out an illegal operation whereby a person died could be charged with wilful murder. So there would have been just as much urgency to dispose of a body as there would if the victim had been murdered in some house or on a boat !

Disposing of a body in this location the disposer would have been thinking that it would not be discovered before it decomposed and therefore would not be able to be identified and perhaps then not traced back to the back st medic.

Another thought could be that if the illegal operation took place at a location near to the dump site and the medic didn't want to travel to far in possession of body parts then several visits to dispose of the parts seems a possibility.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
The torso cases must be assessed as separate cases, I'm sure you'd agree. Therefore we can definitely rule out abortion in the case of the Pinchin and Rainham St torsos as post mortems showed neither were pregnant.

Also, Elizabeth was heavily pregnant but NO abortion was performed on her. Abortion was a procedure which involved the use of an instrument through the vagina to open the cervix and break the waters in the uterus. It was never an abdominal 'operation'. Women who underwent this back street type abortion often died, yes, but they mostly died from the effects of peritonitis and blood poisoning (a similar death to Emma Smith's) many days after the procedure, often back at home.

In Elizabeth's case Bond and Hebbert were able to show that no abortion had taken place due to the condition of the vagina, cervix and uterus, which were all unharmed and in normal condition. This is how they were able to say Elizabeth had not yet delivered the child either, there was none of the stretching, tearing, abrasions and bruising of the vagina, cervix etc that happen during childbirth. All were intact.

Of the 87-89 cases, only the Whitehall case had the uterus missing and so could have been a victim of a failed abortion.

You bring abortion up in every torso discussion but never tailor your arguments to specific cases. No one here is denying abortion practices killed women but some need to read up more on how those deaths occurred and what an abortion entailed. It doesn't fit for 3 of these four cases.

It's possible Elizabeth may have been poisoned by someone trying to bring on a miscarriage. The organs used to detect poisons were missing.

Also, the term 'illegal operation' refers solely to abortions. Students and doctors didn't go around illegally whipping out tonsils and stuff!

Hi Debs
Just another thought with regards to the doctors and their conclusions whereby they stated some of the victims were not pregnant. I just wonder how expert they really were at determining these conclusions, especially if the woman was not that far gone.

I have attached a pic of the fetus at 8 weeks. 1.5 cm. Could they have come to the wrong conclusions?

[John G]

The answer is simple anyone found to be carrying out an illegal operation whereby a person died could be charged with wilful murder. So there would have been just as much urgency to dispose of a body as there would if the victim had been murdered in some house or on a boat !

Disposing of a body in this location the disposer would have been thinking that it would not be discovered before it decomposed and therefore would not be able to be identified and perhaps then not traced back to the back st medic.

Another thought could be that if the illegal operation took place at a location near to the dump site and the medic didn't want to travel to far in possession of body parts then several visits to dispose of the parts seems a possibility.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But a workman stated that only someone who new the site personally or had it minutely described to him could find the vault. How would, say, a medical student acquire such knowledge? And why go to such extreme lengths to dispose of the remains? Why not just throw them into the Thames? Regarding identification, surely the fact that the head wasn't left with the other remains would have been a sufficient enough precaution. And why not just dispose of the remains in a single location?

[Trevor Marriott]

But a workman stated that only someone who new the site personally or had it minutely described to him could find the vault. How would, say, a medical student acquire such knowledge? And why go to such extreme lengths to dispose of the remains? Why not just throw them into the Thames? Regarding identification, surely the fact that the head wasn't left with the other remains would have been a sufficient enough precaution. And why not just dispose of the remains in a single location?

I am not specifically suggesting a medical student I was thinking more of the back street medic.

Well if you suspect a killer at work, why did he not simply throw them in the thames?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[martin wilson]

Hi Trevor

Here's a report closer to the date.

Tenby Obsever 10th November 1887.

A hand, which is believed to be that of a woman, has just been discovered at Sittingbourne under somewhat singular circumstances.
A few men engaged in digging out mud from the bed of the creek (an estuary of the river Swale) to be used in brick making, discovered a hand deeply embedded in the mud.
It was at first taken to be a fossil but a medical man to whom it was submitted gave it as his opinion that it had once formed the subject of a lecture on anatomy.
The hand had been severed at the wrist after death, and according to the usages of dissecting rooms, mercury had evidently been injected into the corpse, for upon an incision of the arteries taking place, quicksilver at once made it's appearance.
This ghastly relic undoubtedly came from the dissecting room of some London hospital , and found it's way into the scavengers cart, only to be brought down to Sittingbourne by one of the barges that ply to and fro from London laden with refuse utilised in the manufacture of bricks.

Whilst I have no opinion on the Whitehall mysteries, this does beg the question, what happened to the rest of the woman?

All the best.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
I am not a gynecologist and nor is anyone else on here so to comment on the likelihood of someone performing some abortion related operation on one of these women is wrong. We don't know how these back street abortionists carried out these illegal operations. But the opening of the abdominal cavities suggest something more than simple dismemberment for disposal after a simple murder.

Despite what Dr Biggs says, we do know that bodies and body parts were accessible to medical students at that time, we also know that it was the responsibility of those acquiring these specimens to dispose of them after. In the case of a body, that would ne.cessitate the cost and trouble of a burial. So to save money it would be easy to cut the body up, parcel it up and dump it.

So i refer to a term used frequently by Dr Biggs "Anyhting is possible"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,
The methods used in illegal abortions are well documented in Victorian medico legal journals for those who want to research it in detail. Cases were written about in almost every edition. In the Westminster hospital pathological museum Hebbert helped curate there was a collection of uteri taken from women who'd died after abortions, doctors wrote academic papers about their cases, cases appeared regularly in the news with post mortem findings. This is why people undertake detailed research specific to these cases.

Elizabeth was still pregnant when she died. Whoever removed the foetus did it to either aid dismemberment (a heavily pregnant woman's uterus would be the first thing seen on opening the abdomen, I've seen post mortem photographs that show this.) or from some sort of curiosity.

If there was no evidence of an abortion as Bond and Hebbert said (and Bond's expert testimony had put several criminal abortionists away in his time) why create that evidence after death? It doesn't make sense.

If you are going to disregard Dr Biggs conclusions when it doesn't suit your argument then you really mustn't quote his findings in other areas either-that's cherry picking.
I thought what Dr Biggs said was on right the mark. He clearly says there's no evidence that these cases were discarded medical specimens. Dr Biggs opinion was that dismemberment was normally done to cover a homicide.

Anyone can make sweeping generalizations. Yes, anything is possible are we are trying to discuss the possibilities in terms of specifics.

[Debra A]

Hi Trevor

Here's a report closer to the date.

Tenby Obsever 10th November 1887.

A hand, which is believed to be that of a woman, has just been discovered at Sittingbourne under somewhat singular circumstances.
A few men engaged in digging out mud from the bed of the creek (an estuary of the river Swale) to be used in brick making, discovered a hand deeply embedded in the mud.
It was at first taken to be a fossil but a medical man to whom it was submitted gave it as his opinion that it had once formed the subject of a lecture on anatomy.
The hand had been severed at the wrist after death, and according to the usages of dissecting rooms, mercury had evidently been injected into the corpse, for upon an incision of the arteries taking place, quicksilver at once made it's appearance.
This ghastly relic undoubtedly came from the dissecting room of some London hospital , and found it's way into the scavengers cart, only to be brought down to Sittingbourne by one of the barges that ply to and fro from London laden with refuse utilised in the manufacture of bricks.

Whilst I have no opinion on the Whitehall mysteries, this does beg the question, what happened to the rest of the woman?

All the best.

Excellent! Note how the hand was immediately recognised as a medical specimen because the veins had been charged with mercury. Medical specimens were always treated before being given to students. None of the torso cases had been treated like this and none of the incisions and limb removal was done in the way surgeons and anatomists would do it, they were trained to leave flaps of skin on limbs to cover the amputated surface area.

[John G]

I am not specifically suggesting a medical student I was thinking more of the back street medic.

Well if you suspect a killer at work, why did he not simply throw them in the thames?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because it could represent a killer's signature. In other words, the body parts were buried in the Scotland Yard building in order to taunt the police, and because of the perpetrators macabre sense of humour.

And, as I've noted before, we see the same macabre sense of humour demonstrated in respect of the body parts, relating to Liz Jackson, that were thrown into the garden of Sir Percy Shelly's property: a relative of Mary Shelley who, of course, wrote Frankenstein.

Then we have the Tottenham Torso, where body parts were disposed of in a location almost constantly patrolled by police, presumably during a shift change. The location was also next to a military drill hall and armoury. Again, this could have been intended to taunt the police.

The Pinchin Street Torso was possibly intended as a pastiche of the Whitechapel murders, hence the mutilation. And, as I've noted, the same macabre humour is still evident: the Torso was placed near to two sleeping drunks, and possibly by the same arches that Schwartz ran to after his encounter with BS man. She may also have been murdered on the anniversary of Chapman's death. The word "Lipski" was also written on some nearby railings, in large chalk letters, which may have been another obvious taunt directed at the police.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
The methods used in illegal abortions are well documented in Victorian medico legal journals for those who want to research it in detail. Cases were written about in almost every edition. In the Westminster hospital pathological museum Hebbert helped curate there was a collection of uteri taken from women who'd died after abortions, doctors wrote academic papers about their cases, cases appeared regularly in the news with post mortem findings. This is why people undertake detailed research specific to these cases.

Elizabeth was still pregnant when she died. Whoever removed the foetus did it to either aid dismemberment (a heavily pregnant woman's uterus would be the first thing seen on opening the abdomen, I've seen post mortem photographs that show this.) or from some sort of curiosity.

If there was no evidence of an abortion as Bond and Hebbert said (and Bond's expert testimony had put several criminal abortionists away in his time) why create that evidence after death? It doesn't make sense.

If you are going to disregard Dr Biggs conclusions when it doesn't suit your argument then you really mustn't quote his findings in other areas either-that's cherry picking.
I thought what Dr Biggs said was on right the mark. He clearly says there's no evidence that these cases were discarded medical specimens. Dr Biggs opinion was that dismemberment was normally done to cover a homicide.

Anyone can make sweeping generalizations. Yes, anything is possible are we are trying to discuss the possibilities in terms of specifics.

Debs

Martin Wilson has kindly posted two newspaper articles which clearly add weight to the possibility.

Whereas I respect the professional opinions of experts like Dr Biggs they do only give opinions and as is known Dr Biggs opinions on some of The Whitechapel Murders issues differs from another forensic pathologist who I used several years ago. So i say again "Anyhting is possible"

Now i dont want to get embroiled in heated arguments on these issues because some want to readily believe that these torsos were as a direct result of murder. Both you and I agreed previous that there was not enough evidence to substantiate that and agreed to call them The Torso Mysteries which is what i am sticking with and others would be wise to do the same.

The reality is we are never going to know the real truth about any of these torsos so all this talk about a Torso serial killer should now come to and end, but will it?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Excellent! Note how the hand was immediately recognised as a medical specimen because the veins had been charged with mercury. Medical specimens were always treated before being given to students. None of the torso cases had been treated like this and none of the incisions and limb removal was done in the way surgeons and anatomists would do it, they were trained to leave flaps of skin on limbs to cover the amputated surface area.

Hello Debra,

Does that also apply to the earlier Putney (1873) and Battersea (1874) cases?

[Trevor Marriott]

Because it could represent a killer's signature. In other words, the body parts were buried in the Scotland Yard building in order to taunt the police, and because of the perpetrators macabre sense of humour.

And, as I've noted before, we see the same macabre sense of humour demonstrated in respect of the body parts, relating to Liz Jackson, that were thrown into the garden of Sir Percy Shelly's property: a relative of Mary Shelley who, of course, wrote Frankenstein.

Then we have the Tottenham Torso, where body parts were disposed of in a location almost constantly patrolled by police, presumably during a shift change. The location was also next to a military drill hall and armoury. Again, this could have been intended to taunt the police.

The Pinchin Street Torso was possibly intended as a pastiche of the Whitechapel murders, hence the mutilation. And, as I've noted, the same macabre humour is still evident: the Torso was placed near to two sleeping drunks, and possibly by the same arches that Schwartz ran to after his encounter with BS man. She may also have been murdered on the anniversary of Chapman's death. The word "Lipski" was also written on some nearby railings, in large chalk letters, which may have been another obvious taunt directed at the police.

John
The body parts have to be disposed of somewhere.

You theory about taunting the police is simply wild and speculative.

As I said previous if the killer wanted to do that he could have

written to the police
written to the press
left notes attached to the body parts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Excellent! Note how the hand was immediately recognised as a medical specimen because the veins had been charged with mercury. Medical specimens were always treated before being given to students. None of the torso cases had been treated like this and none of the incisions and limb removal was done in the way surgeons and anatomists would do it, they were trained to leave flaps of skin on limbs to cover the amputated surface area.

You are cherry picking now !

[Debra A]

You are cherry picking now !

A minute ago you were telling me Martin had posted news clippings that support your medical specimen argument but when I point out that the news clipping actually says the specimens were treated with chemicals and were as such, immediately recognised as specimens you object! I haven't cherry picked anything, I've pointed something out from Martin's clipping-that discarded medical specimens were recognisable as such.
We have a similar scenario in 1884 where portions of a body found were burred as they were recognised as medical specimens.

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

Does that also apply to the earlier Putney (1873) and Battersea (1874) cases?

In what sense, John?
In the 1884 Tottenham 'abortion' dismemberment case other remains found at a simialr time had been burred without an inquiry because they were recognised as medical specimens.