The Whitehall Mystery

[Debra A]

Deb, while you are reading trow, will you keep an eye out for the whitehall chapter and part where the worker was sighted at whitehall and admitted being there on a day he was not working when he was questioned?

Will do, Rocky.

[John G]

The difficulty with the Tottenham Torso, 1884, is that there is not as much information available as the latter victims. I believe, there is no evidence of mutilation, but with the subsequent victims this could represent an evolution of a killer's signature. As I've noted before, the perpetrator took incredible and unnecessary risks in disposing of the body parts, so that is consistent with the latter cases. There was also an I indication that a number of the body parts were slightly crushed, as if they'd been piled on top of one another, and this is similar to the 1873 Torso victim.

I believe it was estimated that the murder occurred around April time, but the body parts were found, and disposed of, in October. This, of course, provides another link with the other victims, who were also disposed of some weeks/months after death occurred. And if death was as the result of an accident, surely the perpetrator would want to dispose of the body as soon as possible, instead of storing it for several months.

It is also worth noting that these crimes were exceptionally rare, Tottenham being the first Torso case since 1874.

[Trevor Marriott]

That isn't what I wrote, Trevor. I'm suggesting that because you have decided there was no organ stealing JTR and the organs were removed at the mortuary for selling on, you have a chance to bolster that theory by claiming the same in another set of cases where organs were missing but bodies were dismembered to show there was a market in this sort of thing.

However, it is difficult for me to understand exactly what you are proposing most of the time as your theories have become a mix and match of various scenarios that don't really fit the evidence.

The simple answer is that the evidence available could suggest several different scenarios. It is not helped by reason of the fact that we now know that many of the medical opinions may have been nothing more than guesswork.

The fact is that vital organs were found to have been removed from some of the torsos and never recovered. Now there has to be a plausible explanation for that. Why would there be a need for them to be separated if the end result was going to be disposal in the thames?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give a plausible explanations for that, seeing as you seem to want to keep pouring cold water on some of my plausible explanations.

It is also a fact that organs were sought after for medical research, so the organs of these torsos finished up somewhere did they not. the question is where? Please dont say a killer took them for trophies!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Because it is much easier to dispose of smaller wrapped up sections of a body than lug or transport a whole body through London to throw in the Thames. In the Rainham and Elizabeth Jackson case the torso section itself was divided into 3 parts, starting with a mid line incision running ribs to pubes.
Organs could have been lost from the sectioned torso after being flung into the Thames and the wrapping came loose, or they could have been purposefully removed for trophies or to purposefully removed to hide evidence of poisoning in an abortion scenario.

If they were to be sold one would imagine the goal to be to make the highest amount of money possible given the huge risks being taken, why take a couple of organs and not empty the body completely?

[Trevor Marriott]

Because it is much easier to dispose of smaller wrapped up sections of a body than lug or transport a whole body through London to throw in the Thames. In the Rainham and Elizabeth Jackson case the torso section itself was divided into 3 parts, starting with a mid line incision running ribs to pubes.
Organs could have been lost from the sectioned torso after being flung into the Thames and the wrapping came loose, or they could have been purposefully removed for trophies or to purposefully removed to hide evidence of poisoning in an abortion scenario.

If they were to be sold one would imagine the goal to be to make the highest amount of money possible given the huge risks being taken, why take a couple of organs and not empty the body completely?

Organs don't become detached and lost, from where they sit in the abdomen on their own through carrying.

Well if you argue that and suggest that Mary Kelly was killed by the same killer as the rest why did he not take the whole body contents with him ?

I also dont know of too many serial killer cases in the past where after a murder took place at a specific location and the body was dismembered and the body parts then taken away and dumped at different locations.

Most of the serial killers after killing their victims especially those who killed at home dismembered the bodies and either simply put the parts out with the rubbish or buried them in their back gardens.

Do you agree that Jackson was not murdered in the true sense of murder ? If you do then this discussion about these torsos can now move on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Organs don't become detached and lost, from where they sit in the abdomen on their own through carrying.

Well if you argue that and suggest that Mary Kelly was killed by the same killer as the rest why did he not take the whole body contents with him ?

I also dont know of too many serial killer cases in the past where after a murder took place at a specific location and the body was dismembered and the body parts then taken away and dumped at different locations.

Most of the serial killers after killing their victims especially those who killed at home dismembered the bodies and either simply put the parts out with the rubbish or buried them in their back gardens.

Do you agree that Jackson was not murdered in the true sense of murder ? If you do then this discussion about these torsos can now move on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have no idea what you are you talking about with regards to your Mary Kelly comment, Trevor. You are the one suggesting organs were being sold off, not me. I have no need to explain why only Mary's heart was taken away when I'm asking you why all Elizabeth's organs weren't sold off as that is your explanation for her heart, parts of her intestine, and gullet being missing.

Intestines and other organs stay exactly in the correct place when a body is severed across at the shoulders and pelvis and opened up in the mid line too?
In the Whitehall case it wasn't just a uterus and appendages missing, it was the whole pelvis and contents that weren't recovered.

[Debra A]

Do you agree that Jackson was not murdered in the true sense of murder ? If you do then this discussion about these torsos can now move on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

John Netley probably knocked her down accidentally with his Royal coach one night when he was charging through the streets on his way to Whitechapel.

[RockySullivan]

The simple answer is that the evidence available could suggest several different scenarios. It is not helped by reason of the fact that we now know that many of the medical opinions may have been nothing more than guesswork.

The fact is that vital organs were found to have been removed from some of the torsos and never recovered. Now there has to be a plausible explanation for that. Why would there be a need for them to be separated if the end result was going to be disposal in the thames?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give a plausible explanations for that, seeing as you seem to want to keep pouring cold water on some of my plausible explanations.

It is also a fact that organs were sought after for medical research, so the organs of these torsos finished up somewhere did they not. the question is where? Please dont say a killer took them for trophies!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor what's your theory on the fetus in the jar? Errata has an interesting theory that Jackson's fetus was taken as a replacement for the one in the pickle jar

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rocky,

One reason for suspecting an inside job is that access to the vault, were the remains were found, was difficult. One of the workers stated that he believed it could only have been accessed by someone who knew the site personally or had it minutely described to him.

The foreman thought only someone who had been In the inside of the vault or had it described to him could have left torso there. Gaining entrance is a big factor but the fact that the torso sat for weeks rotting where these man kept their tools is a big red flag for me. I believe only two men kept their tools in this specific part of the vault...one being a Lawrence who loved in battersea

[Trevor Marriott]

I have no idea what you are you talking about with regards to your Mary Kelly comment, Trevor. You are the one suggesting organs were being sold off, not me. I have no need to explain why only Mary's heart was taken away when I'm asking you why all Elizabeth's organs weren't sold off as that is your explanation for her heart, parts of her intestine, and gullet being missing.

Intestines and other organs stay exactly in the correct place when a body is severed across at the shoulders and pelvis and opened up in the mid line too?
In the Whitehall case it wasn't just a uterus and appendages missing, it was the whole pelvis and contents that weren't recovered.

Debra
Because so little is known about these torso victims and how they died an open mind has to be kept to cover all eventualities. despite how out of the box they seem.

If you take your car to be scrapped the scrapper will remove anything that they think they can sell separately and make money on. I am not going out on a limb with any of the proposed explanations other than the fact that I do not believe that they were all the subject of murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor what's your theory on the fetus in the jar? Errata has an interesting theory that Jackson's fetus was taken as a replacement for the one in the pickle jar

Hi Rocky

I dont have a theory Errata is fully entitled to air her theories on here for discussion. It is not something I would want to become embroiled in there is enough flak flying about trying to get to the bottom of established facts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

The foreman thought only someone who had been In the inside of the vault or had it described to him could have left torso there. Gaining entrance is a big factor but the fact that the torso sat for weeks rotting where these man kept their tools is a big red flag for me. I believe only two men kept their tools in this specific part of the vault...one being a Lawrence who loved in battersea

Yes, but two of the workman stated that the Torso parcel, found on the ledge, must have been their only a few days, I.e. during the weekend when they weren't work.

[Debra A]

Debra
Because so little is known about these torso victims and how they died an open mind has to be kept to cover all eventualities. despite how out of the box they seem.

........I am not going out on a limb with any of the proposed explanations other than the fact that I do not believe that they were all the subject of murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My mind is open to the same number of possibilities yours is, but I exclude a medic performing an abortion via an incision into the abdomen who removes skin in the process who then goes on to sell a couple of organs and you exclude a serial killer.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Mortuary attendants did have access to bodily organs, although the most contemporary reference I could find was in 1906.

Weekly Mail 15th September 1906

MORTUARY HORROR

A CARDIFF COUNCILLORS GRAVE CHARGE.

Mr Joseph Stanfield, a member of the Cardiff Health Committee made the following statement.

'He (Mr Stanfield) said he was told in numerous cases of post mortem examinations, for which medical practitioners were paid, the bodies were prepared and the organs cut out and placed on the post mortem table at the mortuary in Trade street by the old man who acted as caretaker there.
The organs were afterwards replaced and the body sewn up by the same person. If this were true, it was a very awful state of affairs.'

This was 'vigorously denied' by Mr Benjamin T. B. Carbis, the caretaker in question

All the best.

[John G]

The perpetrator clearly went to a great deal of trouble to dispose of the body, and was therefore clearly an organized offender. Thus, he dismembered the corpse and took steps to prevent the victim being identified, I.e. he retained the head. Why would such a person then be crazy enough to attempt to sell the organs, thus drawing attention to his nefarious activities?