The Whitehall Mystery

[Fisherman]

Then why not dispose of all the body parts on dry land that would be more of a shock and why even bother to parcel them up that would be even more shocking.
I am sorry but the serial killer theory is a non starter for me

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

... and if anybody wonders why the police failed to catch either man, there´s your answer.

[jerryd]

Then why not dispose of all the body parts on dry land that would be more of a shock and why even bother to parcel them up that would be even more shocking.
I am sorry but the serial killer theory is a non starter for me

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wouldn't it be rather odd walking down the road with a couple extra exposed body parts flopping around?

[Fisherman]

Wouldn't it be rather odd walking down the road with a couple extra exposed body parts flopping around?

Yeah - but Trevor is right when he says it would shock people!

[Debra A]

If Jackson was 7 months pregnant then there would be a need to open up the abdomen

With regards to Elizabeth Jackson I note the extract for Debs dissertation

"Dr Bond was instantly of the opinion that the body part was that of a young woman and that an attempt had been made to carry out an illegal operation, which had been successful"

The he later changed his mind

"Dr Thomas Bond handed the coroner a lengthy report on the medical findings and the description of the woman was again repeated including the fact that she was pregnant by about seven to eight months and undelivered at the time of her death, the unborn child having been removed, by an incision into the uterus after the mother's death"

I would suggest that there would have been no way to positively conclude that the child was removed after or before death.

We also know that a foetus was also found in the thames. Of course we cannot say if it is connected but I would suggest there is a strong possibility.

Finally going back to Dr Biggs who rightly makes the comment that there was no way back then of positively linking all the body parts to the same person.

Was Jackson murdered and dismembered or did she die during some back street medical procedure connected to her pregnancy? Or are some going to stick with the serial killer theory?

www.trevormarriott

The aim of an abortionists was to cause the uterus of a pregnant woman to begin contracting and deliver the foetus before it was viable (qbout 28 weeks) early abortion was much more difficult than later abortion.
There was absolutely no need to make an incision in Elizabeth's case if a miscarriage was the aim-whoever did that did it to either facilitate dismemberment or from some sort of curiosity. You seem to be confusing abortion with a caesarian, Trevor?

Dr Bond changed his mind about an abortion because no actual abortion took place. His initial statements were based on the very first parcel find containing the uterus, abdominal skin and placenta. It was only after examining the later found body parts that Dr Bond was able to say with certainty that Elizabeth had not delivered a child, by the condition of her cervix and vagina and surrounding area. Signs of a vaginal delivery would have meant an abortion had been successful. Caesarian sections were not against the law and an opening of the addomen to remove a foetus would have been classed as such. A death during a caesarian would not be classed as willful murder, as an abortion would, so no need to cover up the death.


Whoever dismembered the body may have needed to just not be caught with a corpse and so dismembered and parcelled up sections for easier transportation and discarded them as they went along to avoid detection. The torso sections in the park were also probably thrown from the embankment as was the Shelley house find (this house was being rented out at the time and not occupied by anyone in the Shelley family)as they were in an area of frame ground where staff worked but it wasn't open to the public and this was near the Thames embankment side.

[John G]

What is extraordinary about all of these cases is that the perpetrator, by dismembering the bodies, clearly went to a great deal of trouble. He even appeared to take the precaution of ensuring that the heads were not discovered, presumably to prevent identification, although they may have been kept as trophies.

However, in stark contrast to his initial circumspection, he subsequently makes very little effort to prevent discovery of the body parts; hence most of them were easily found. I mean, he could have buried the remains, or simply weighed them down before disposing of them in the Thames. It seems to me, therefore, that the inescapable conclusion is that he intended the remains to be discovered, and the motive was probably the same as that of MJK 's killer: shock value.

[Trevor Marriott]

The aim of an abortionists was to cause the uterus of a pregnant woman to begin contracting and deliver the foetus before it was viable (qbout 28 weeks) early abortion was much more difficult than later abortion.
There was absolutely no need to make an incision in Elizabeth's case if a miscarriage was the aim-whoever did that did it to either facilitate dismemberment or from some sort of curiosity. You seem to be confusing abortion with a caesarian, Trevor?

I have been particular in referring to a back street operation. And yes the body of Jackson does tend to point to a Cesarean

Dr Bond changed his mind about an abortion because no actual abortion took place. His initial statements were based on the very first parcel find containing the uterus, abdominal skin and placenta. It was only after examining the later found body parts that Dr Bond was able to say with certainty that Elizabeth had not delivered a child, by the condition of her cervix and vagina and surrounding area. Signs of a vaginal delivery would have meant an abortion had been successful. Caesarian sections were not against the law and an opening of the addomen to remove a foetus would have been classed as such. A death during a caesarian would not be classed as willful murder, as an abortion would, so no need to cover up the death.

There would be every need to cover it up it was illegal to use any instrument or give anyone some noxious substance unless you were a qualified medical practitioner. If you were performing a cesarean and you were unlicensed and the patient dies you would still be held responsible

Whoever dismembered the body may have needed to just not be caught with a corpse and so dismembered and parceled up sections for easier transportation and discarded them as they went along to avoid detection. The torso sections in the park were also probably thrown from the embankment as was the Shelley house find (this house was being rented out at the time and not occupied by anyone in the Shelley family)as they were in an area of frame ground where staff worked but it wasn't open to the public and this was near the Thames embankment side.

I totally agree with you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[RockySullivan]

What is extraordinary about all of these cases is that the perpetrator, by dismembering the bodies, clearly went to a great deal of trouble. He even appeared to take the precaution of ensuring that the heads were not discovered, presumably to prevent identification, although they may have been kept as trophies.

However, in stark contrast to his initial circumspection, he subsequently makes very little effort to prevent discovery of the body parts; hence most of them were easily found. I mean, he could have buried the remains, or simply weighed them down before disposing of them in the Thames. It seems to me, therefore, that the inescapable conclusion is that he intended the remains to be discovered, and the motive was probably the same as that of MJK 's killer: shock value.

Interesting that he did bury some...and why partially bury the limbs and leave the torso to rot in whitehall?

[John G]

Interesting that he did bury some...and why partially bury the limbs and leave the torso to rot in whitehall?

Hello Rocky,

The Whitehall Torso is interesting. The Torso was discovered in a recess where the workmen left their tools. It was clearly intended to be found- in fact, it had started to attract maggots.

However, as you say, a leg and a foot were buried, and the missing left arm was burried beneath these remains, I.e. to a deeper level. They were only discovered with the aid of a dog. Moreover, these limbs had been their longer than the Torso, suggesting the perpetrator made at least two trips.

I think this hints at a duel purpose: some body parts were left in the open for shock value, and to announce another murder, whilst the body parts that were buried were not intended to be found, at least immediately, so were possibly intended to taunt the police. In other words, the perpetrator could revel in the fact that part of the victims remains remained undiscovered, right under the noses of the police, within the confines of their own headquarters!

[Debra A]

Hello Rocky,

The Whitehall Torso is interesting. The Torso was discovered in a recess where the workmen left their tools. It was clearly intended to be found- in fact, it had started to attract maggots.

However, as you say, a leg and a foot were buried, and the missing left arm was burried beneath these remains, I.e. to a deeper level. They were only discovered with the aid of a dog. Moreover, these limbs had been their longer than the Torso, suggesting the perpetrator made at least two trips.

I think this hints at a duel purpose: some body parts were left in the open for shock value, and to announce another murder, whilst the body parts that were buried were not intended to be found, at least immediately, so were possibly intended to taunt the police. In other words, the perpetrator could revel in the fact that part of the victims remains remained undiscovered, right under the noses of the police, within the confines of their own headquarters!

Hi John, Rocky
Was there really a left arm found buried in the vault at Whitehall? I have never heard or come across this in my years of research and it isn't included in Hebbert's published lectures on the post mortem observations of the dismemberment cases 87-89 or other printed journal material supplied by Hebbert and Bond on the four cases. I'd be interested in the source for this.

The explanation given for the burial of the leg at Whitehall was that it had been dumped at exactly the same time as the torso but when earth had been dug out in the vault for a drainage system 5 weeks earlier, the surplus earth had been thrown in a pile covering the leg in earth and so wasn't seen until Smoker the dog uncovered it.
The implication was also that the torso had been in the vault all along but just not seen by the workmen.

[Debra A]

I totally agree with you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi trevor, the suggestion that n illegal caesarian was the cause of death and dismemberment is almost ridiculous to be honest, and obviously not based on any research or knowledge into LVP abortion or medical practices.

If it was an abortion gone wrong IMHO it's likely a poison was used that killed Elizabeth instantly and so she was dismembered to cover the crime by removal of the organs that would have retained the remains of the poison and to get to these organs the foetus was removed as it would have been covering the other organs and been the most prominent feature once an incision had been made into the abdomen.

[Debra A]

You need to quote properly too, Trevor.
I object to you pasting your answers in to a quote box with my name on it as I didn't write those things in bold , although it looks like I did now. People skimming through might think I did as no one really follows discussions carefully or reads all the posts, in my experience.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Any ideas?

South Wales Daily Post 7th September 1898.

BODY SNATCHING AT MACCLESFIELD
EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT OF A LUNATIC.

On Tuesday night at Macclesfield a man was arrested on an extraordinary charge.
It is alleged he went to Macclesfield cemetery late in the evening, unearthed a coffin containing the body of a female child twelve months old.
He unscrewed the lid, cut the body in two near the breast, wrapped the lower portion in a parcel, and took it away reinterring the other portion.
When arrested he said he wanted the lower part of the body for a museum.
The man is supposed to be insane.

All the best.

[John G]

Hi John, Rocky
Was there really a left arm found buried in the vault at Whitehall? I have never heard or come across this in my years of research and it isn't included in Hebbert's published lectures on the post mortem observations of the dismemberment cases 87-89 or other printed journal material supplied by Hebbert and Bond on the four cases. I'd be interested in the source for this.

The explanation given for the burial of the leg at Whitehall was that it had been dumped at exactly the same time as the torso but when earth had been dug out in the vault for a drainage system 5 weeks earlier, the surplus earth had been thrown in a pile covering the leg in earth and so wasn't seen until Smoker the dog uncovered it.
The implication was also that the torso had been in the vault all along but just not seen by the workmen.

Hello Debra,

From Trow's book: " Nevertheless, the animal found the missing left arm buried below where it had found the leg and foot." (Trow, 2011) Apparently the police returned with the dog, after dark, on the same day that the terrier found the left leg and foot, Wednesday 17 October. The Times is cited, but no date given for the citation.

At the inquest Dr Bond stated that he believed the leg had been there for some weeks. He was also of the opinion that the Torso must also have been there for some significant time. However, this is contradicted by witnesses, i.e the workman, who stated that it couldn't have been there prior to the weekend of 29/30 September: Frederick Windborn, for example, discovered the Torso parcel in the same recess where he'd left his tools on the 28th September.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi trevor, the suggestion that n illegal caesarian was the cause of death and dismemberment is almost ridiculous to be honest, and obviously not based on any research or knowledge into LVP abortion or medical practices.

If it was an abortion gone wrong IMHO it's likely a poison was used that killed Elizabeth instantly and so she was dismembered to cover the crime by removal of the organs that would have retained the remains of the poison and to get to these organs the foetus was removed as it would have been covering the other organs and been the most prominent feature once an incision had been made into the abdomen.

There could have been a number of reasons why the foetus at 7 months needed to be remove ever heard of a premature birth ?

As to the use of your quotes you are being pernickety.

The first quotes were yours and the second to highlight the doctors comments

I am certainty not going to argue on insignificant trivialities

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

There could have been a number of reasons why the foetus at 7 months needed to be remove ever heard of a premature birth ?

As to the use of your quotes you are being pernickety.

The first quotes were yours and the second to highlight the doctors comments

I am certainty not going to argue on insignificant trivialities

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But surely assisting in a birth wouldn't have constituted an illegal operation. So why the need to dismember the body? Isn't the simplest and most likely explanation by far is that these victims were murdered?