The Whitehall Mystery

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, recovery of whole bodies (of both sexes and all ages) from the Thames and Regent's Canal area was common.
Recovery of body parts of infants and newborns from the Thames was common.
Recovery of discarded treated medical specimens around dustbins in gardens and in public places happened sometimes and were recongnised as medical specimen.
Dismembered body parts turned up hidden in all manner of places and all over the UK, some of the cases solved, others not.
The recovery of mature female body parts from the Thames was rare. I don't agree with you about it being common.
None of Martin's snippets involve Thames finds.

That was my point.

It's okay to post news stories but It's probably a good idea to check to the very end of a news story (some covered months of copy) before presenting it as one thing, when in fact it is something else altogether-as in the case of the bears leg or bag of game. I'm sure you'd agree?

Are you certain about the doctors ability to detect poisons in the dead? The numerous toxicology and medical jurisprudence texts of the era suggest they were quite competent at it. Detection would have been done through organs like the stomach, bowels and intestines. And in any case, you are getting muddled again-In three of the four cases 87-89 the actual torso with remaining organs were found on dry land, not water so how could water affect poisons being detected?

They also checked for organic disease in the organs, which is something I've mentioned a few times too. Bodies taken for medical specimens were normally taken from the unclaimed workhouse dead, after a set period of time (3 days) and Elizabeth was last seen 24 hours before her remains began washing up on the Thames foreshore.

Specifics..

With regards to poisoning I will put in another question to Dr Biggs for clarification.

My post to which you refer was a generalisation I did specifically refer to bodies in water.

I think you will find that it was 24 hours and not 3 days as you have quoted.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Rocky. In three of the four cases 87-89 the bodies were opened by an incision starting below the sternum and ending either at, in, or near the genitals.
Writing from memory, so I'll correct this later if I'm wrong-the naval was also cut around during the incision in one case, in a similar to the way Eddowes was.

I know one of the original medical experts Trevor consulted for his earlier book, thought that showed some degree of medical knowledge in the Eddowes case but that doesn't fit to Trevor's ideas about the organs being removed postmortem as the diagrams drawn at the Eddowes crime scene clearly show that opening was present at the crime scene.

Well I beg to differ on the above issue. If the organs were removed at the mortuary by a doctor,medical student or anatomist covertly, then anyone of them would have had the know how to extract those organs. It may well have been the case that in order to extract those organs that person being a medical person may well have had to make additional minor incisions to be able to do so.

Yes we know the abdomen of Eddowes was ripped open but other than that nothing more was documented in full until the post mortem itself so as we keep saying "anything is possible"

And of course it should be noted that the only two victims who were found to have organs missing were Chapman and Eddowes who both had their stomachs ripped open making it easy for organs to be extracted at the mortuary during those 12 hour windows before post mortems.

So doesn't that tell us something and give us a clue?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

And of course it should be noted that the only two victims who were found to have organs missing were Chapman and Eddowes who both had their stomachs ripped open making it easy for organs to be extracted at the mortuary during those 12 hour windows before post mortems.

Or that the killer had ripped them open precisely to steal their organs?

That makes too much sense, though.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or that the killer had ripped them open precisely to steal their organs?

That makes too much sense, though.

Of course it does, he rips them open in a mad frenzied attack, cutting and slashing and then he presses another button and is able to regain sufficient composure to surgically remove organs in the dark, with a degree of anatomical knowledge.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

With regards to poisoning I will put in another question to Dr Biggs for clarification.

My post to which you refer was a generalisation I did specifically refer to bodies in water.

Trevor-As I've said before, the reason we are going around in circles here is your tendency towards generalisations rather than addressing specifics things pointed out to you in specific cases, by practically everyone else on the thread.
Which case of a dismembered torso in the Thames where poison might not have been detected because the body had been in the water are you specifically referring to? It would help to know and then you could put that case to Dr Biggs.

[Debra A]

Yes we know the abdomen of Eddowes was ripped open but other than that nothing more was documented in full until the post mortem itself so as we keep saying "anything is possible"

The crime scene drawing shows Eddowes abdomen opened up ribs to pubes, well past the naval in both directions.
In your last book, one of your medical experts said the cutting around the naval in Eddowes case showed some medical skill or knowledge. In that case, the skill shown was present before she even got to the mortuary, present in the killer's opening of her abdomen, if we are to believe your expert.

[Harry D]

Of course it does, he rips them open in a mad frenzied attack, cutting and slashing and then he presses another button and is able to regain sufficient composure to surgically remove organs in the dark, with a degree of anatomical knowledge.

What makes you think these were "mad, frenzied" attacks?

[John G]

Well I beg to differ on the above issue. If the organs were removed at the mortuary by a doctor,medical student or anatomist covertly, then anyone of them would have had the know how to extract those organs. It may well have been the case that in order to extract those organs that person being a medical person may well have had to make additional minor incisions to be able to do so.

Yes we know the abdomen of Eddowes was ripped open but other than that nothing more was documented in full until the post mortem itself so as we keep saying "anything is possible"

And of course it should be noted that the only two victims who were found to have organs missing were Chapman and Eddowes who both had their stomachs ripped open making it easy for organs to be extracted at the mortuary during those 12 hour windows before post mortems.

So doesn't that tell us something and give us a clue?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, it tells us that they were the victims of a serial killer "progressing across a continuum of escalating violence."

[Trevor Marriott]

What makes you think these were "mad, frenzied" attacks?

Well if you dont think the attack on Eddowes was, then there is no hope for you.

But we are getting off the thread topic here and all of these issues have been covered before many times on here

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Well I beg to differ on the above issue. If the organs were removed at the mortuary by a doctor,medical student or anatomist covertly, then anyone of them would have had the know how to extract those organs. It may well have been the case that in order to extract those organs that person being a medical person may well have had to make additional minor incisions to be able to do so.

In the torso cases?
How do you suggest any of the women ended up at the mortuary in the first place then if causes of death were not detected? Mature, well nourished woman as they were described, with no signs of disease or infection, how did they die and end up on a mortuary slab?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, it tells us that they were the victims of a serial killer "progressing across a continuum of escalating violence."

You seem to have this fixation surrounding escalating violence !

Now on the basis that Tabram could have been the first victim she was stabbed 39 times quite a significant frenzied attack would you not think?

Then Nichols, a drop back no sign of a frenzied attack as you would might expect based on your escalation theory

Stride, hardly a scratch on her, thats a de-escalation yet again is it not?

Then Eddowes as discussed an escalation from Stride.

Kelly on a par with Eddowes

Then Coles and Mckenzie a step back in escalation and dont forget these murders coincided with the years the torsos were turning up.

So your escalation theory does not stand up to close scrutiny for all of the Whitechapel murders

Based on my belief that the only three attributable to the same killer were Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes. the latter two were on a par with each other as far as injuries were concerned. Nicholls had similar injuries but not so severe, but that was perhaps because the killer may have been disturbed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

In the torso cases?
How do you suggest any of the women ended up at the mortuary in the first place then if causes of death were not detected? Mature, well nourished woman as they were described, with no signs of disease or infection, how did they die and end up on a mortuary slab?

All dead bodies end up at the mortuary its where they take them to find out how they died !

Please tell me why you have this bee in your bonnet about these torso`s?

You have already been told by a forensic pathologist that the causes of death cannot be conclusively determined. You have already been told that Victorian doctors opinions were based at times nothing more than guesswork. I don't know why we are continuing to argue irrelevant points on these Torsos.

I take the view and perhaps you should that according to Dr Biggs "anything is possible" and we are never going to change that because that's how it is, but you seem to not want to accept that, and want to keep flogging a dead horse with the murder angle.

I am not going to partake further in this thread accept to post the reply from Dr Biggs when i get it with regards to the poisons.

On this issue I will make mention that in the murder of Eddowes her stomach and contents were sent to an expert on poisons to determine if she had been poisoned. That doesn't appear to have happened with regards to the torsos. If it did then I have missed it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

You seem to have this fixation surrounding escalating violence !

Now on the basis that Tabram could have been the first victim she was stabbed 39 times quite a significant frenzied attack would you not think?

Then Nichols, a drop back no sign of a frenzied attack as you would might expect based on your escalation theory

Stride, hardly a scratch on her, thats a de-escalation yet again is it not?

Then Eddowes as discussed an escalation from Stride.

Kelly on a par with Eddowes

Then Coles and Mckenzie a step back in escalation and dont forget these murders coincided with the years the torsos were turning up.

So your escalation theory does not stand up to close scrutiny for all of the Whitechapel murders

Based on my belief that the only three attributable to the same killer were Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes. the latter two were on a par with each other as far as injuries were concerned. Nicholls had similar injuries but not so severe, but that was perhaps because the killer may have been disturbed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's actually Keppel's theory: see Keppel (2005). Nichols was mutilated; Tabram wasn't. Chapman represents an escalation in respect of organ removal and Eddowes to facial disfigurement and organ removal. Kelly is most definitely not on a par with Eddowes: There was far more extensive facial disfigurement and her breasts, uterus, Kidney, heart, liver and spleen were all removed. The surface of both her abdomen and of her thighs were also removed. With Stride, the killer may have been disturbed.

[Debra A]

All dead bodies end up at the mortuary its where they take them to find out how they died !

Please tell me why you have this bee in your bonnet about these torso`s?

You have already been told by a forensic pathologist that the causes of death cannot be conclusively determined. You have already been told that Victorian doctors opinions were based at times nothing more than guesswork. I don't know why we are continuing to argue irrelevant points on these Torsos.

I take the view and perhaps you should that according to Dr Biggs "anything is possible" and we are never going to change that because that's how it is, but you seem to not want to accept that, and want to keep flogging a dead horse with the murder angle.

I am not going to partake further in this thread accept to post the reply from Dr Biggs when i get it with regards to the poisons.

On this issue I will make mention that in the murder of Eddowes her stomach and contents were sent to an expert on poisons to determine if she had been poisoned. That doesn't appear to have happened with regards to the torsos. If it did then I have missed it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The torsos were taken in pieces! Hebbert and Bond say they fitted the sections of the torso together, matching the mid line incision that ran through all three sections in two of the cases.

You were describing a scenario where bodies were opened up and organs removed covertly in the mortuary, my question to you is perfectly valid in that case.

A suspicious cause of death could not be determined is the issue Dr Biggs addressed specifically, in light of the 'bee in your bonnet' about the inquest verdicts of murder.

I haven't a bee in my bonnet about anything except people who spread mis-information about these torso cases by making sweeping generalisations, have done no research at all of their own and have little or no historical knowledge of the period.

I will go as you are obviously getting upset and your grundies in a twist because you are incapable of addressing even basic points on specifics that are put to you.
Bye.

[Trevor Marriott]

The torsos were taken in pieces! Hebbert and Bond say they fitted the sections of the torso together, matching the mid line incision that ran through all three sections in two of the cases.

You were describing a scenario where bodies were opened up and organs removed covertly in the mortuary, my question to you is perfectly valid in that case.

A suspicious cause of death could not be determined is the issue Dr Biggs addressed specifically, in light of the 'bee in your bonnet' about the inquest verdicts of murder.

I haven't a bee in my bonnet about anything except people who spread mis-information about these torso cases by making sweeping generalisations, have done no research at all of their own and have little or no historical knowledge of the period.

I will go as you are obviously getting upset and your grundies in a twist because you are incapable of addressing even basic points on specifics that are put to you.
Bye.

Before I go, and before you remove that bee in your bonnet, Please be so kinds as to answer me these simple questions, and perhaps others on here might want to do the same,

Can you prove that any of the torsos were the subject of murder based on what Dr Biggs has now said having reviewed you work on the torsos ?

If you are able to prove that, can you prove they were the work of a serial killer?

If they were not the work of a killer can you prove that they died as a result of a back street procedure connected to a pregnancy issue?

Can you prove that they did not die as a result of some back st medical procedure connected to a pregnancy issue?

Tatty Bye

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk