The Whitehall Mystery

[John G]

John, i think you take you the phrase "loose woman" too literally and in any case there is nothing to indicate the whitehall torso was that of a prostitute. Unless of course you consider the case of Elizabeth Jackson, who had resorted to prostitution and indeed had her uterus removed and disposed of in the thames. Are we to believe that Chapman, Eddowes and Jackson all had their uterus removed by the killer and yet the whitehall victim's was simply lost? From what I can tell this is the only organ noted to be missing. No doubt another coincidence of course.

Abby did a great job in detailing the similarities between the torso killer and the ripper's signature. Yes the method of disposal differed, as it did between the torso victims and between ripper victims like Nichol's and Kelly.

Rocky,

As I've pointed out numerous times, it makes no sense to link the Torso crimes with the Whitechapel murders. Thus, the Torso Murderer used dump sites and decapitated his victims, retaining the head; JtR didn't. The Torso Murderer dismembered his victims, sometimes scattering the body parts in different places; JtR didn't. The Torso killer retained the body of the victim's, often for a considerable period, before disposal; JtR didn't. JtR committed genital mutilations, a clear signature characteristic; the Torso killer didn't. The Torso Murderer targeted victims over a wide area; JtR focussed on an extremely small geographical area, Whitechapel. The Torso Murders were spread over several years; the C5 plus Tabram all occurred in 1888. Frankly, the differences seem endless.

Then there's the fact that, considered as a series, the Whitechapel murders make reasonable sense. Thus, as Keppel points out, the evidence suggests that JtR was progressing across a continuum of escalating violence. However, throw the Torso murders into the mix and you end up with an incoherent, illogical mess.

[RockySullivan]

Rocky,

As I've pointed out numerous times, it makes no sense to link the Torso crimes with the Whitechapel murders. Thus, the Torso Murderer used dump sites and decapitated his victims, retaining the head; JtR didn't. The Torso Murderer dismembered his victims, sometimes scattering the body parts in different places; JtR didn't. The Torso killer retained the body of the victim's, often for a considerable period, before disposal; JtR didn't. JtR committed genital mutilations, a clear signature characteristic; the Torso killer didn't. The Torso Murderer targeted victims over a wide area; JtR focussed on an extremely small geographical area, Whitechapel. The Torso Murders were spread over several years; the C5 plus Tabram all occurred in 1888. Frankly, the differences seem endless.

Then there's the fact that, considered as a series, the Whitechapel murders make reasonable sense. Thus, as Keppel points out, the evidence suggests that JtR was progressing across a continuum of escalating violence. However, throw the Torso murders into the mix and you end up with an incoherent, illogical mess.

how is the uterus removed not genital mutilation?

[Sam Flynn]

how is the uterus removed not genital mutilation?

I don't think the uterus counts as "genitals", Rocky. The Oxford English Dictionary defines genitals/genitalia as "the external organs of generation". To view it otherwise would almost be like putting "duodenum" under the same heading as "anal".

[Abby Normal]

I don't think the uterus counts as "genitals", Rocky. The Oxford English Dictionary defines genitals/genitalia as "the external organs of generation". To view it otherwise would almost be like putting "duodenum" under the same heading as "anal".

Haha. Very funnny. I don't think the ripper had a dictionary in one hand Sam.

[John G]

how is the uterus removed not genital mutilation?

Happily this question has been answered! I would add that the Whitehall victim was the only torso case where the uterus was removed. And, of course, it could have been lost in transit. I would also remind you of Dr Phillips' comments at the Pinchin Torso inquest: "The mutilations in the Dorset-Street case where most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

In other words, the mutilations in the torso cases may have been incidental. rather than, say, a signature characteristic.

[Debra A]

Hi all

There is a question of whether or not Hebbert himself thought the Whitechapel and torso victims were the work of JTR. In a Boston newspaper article about an American child murderer, located by Robert Linford, comments on the killer's [Gilbert] state of mind and possible insanity are made by Dr Hebbert who was working in Boston at the time. He compares Gilbert's crime to the 'sexual mania' shown in the 'Whitechapel crimes of Jack the Ripper' and claims to have seen six of those victims. Here's a transcript of Hebbert's comments from the article linked to above:

SAYS HE IS INSANE
Dr Charles A. Hebbert, when interviewed on the subject, [of Gilbert] said:
"I can conceive that that if the man was in a certain epileptic condition that he did not know what he had done until after it was over. "

"It did not appear to me to be a case of sexual mania. The body was mutilated in an entirely different way from murders of that kind. I saw six of the Whitchapel victims of Jack the Ripper. I am somewhat acquainted with crimes of that sort in countries other than England and I can say that those cases, without exception, were totally different from this case. "

While Dr Hebbert would not , in any way criticise anything that occurred during the trial, he admitted that he thought the family history of the prisoner was not considered sufficiently. A man who comes of a family in which there are two insane relatives, two idiots- a man whose father and grandfather were drunkards is able to inherit an insane temperament. The tendency to insanity in such cases is recognised by insurance companies who are very careful about taking risks of that sort.

Dr Hebbert stated very positively that he thinks a case of this sort calls for close examination for some period of time and that it was not possible to pass upon it correctly in the short time the man was under medical examination.
"I don't think the man ought ever to be at large again,"concluded Dr. Hebbert. "It is now a question whether he had better be treated by the discipline of an asylum or prison."

Dr Hebbert was connected for some time with the epilepsy Hospital in St. Johns Wood, London and with the Bethlehem Royal Hospital, the greatest lunacy hospital in the world. By reason of his experience and capacity he is regarded as a high authority on insanity.

Which six victims did Hebbert see? We know he was present with Dr Bond at the Miller's Court murder and also saw Mylett's autopsy (although she was not mutilated). Rob Clack suggested McKenzie, as Bond saw her body. Hebbert definitely saw and did post mortems on the four 'torso' victims- 87-89, which he suggested were all dismembered by the same person. Was he including those in his tally?
I suppose seeing the photographs of Catherine Eddowes' mutilations would count as 'seeing' what had been done mutilation-wise.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=23467&page=2

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=90

[Debra A]

Happily this question has been answered! I would add that the Whitehall victim was the only torso case where the uterus was removed. And, of course, it could have been lost in transit. I would also remind you of Dr Phillips' comments at the Pinchin Torso inquest: "The mutilations in the Dorset-Street case where most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body."

In other words, the mutilations in the torso cases may have been incidental. rather than, say, a signature characteristic.

Elizabeth Jackson's uterus was removed and parceled up with the flaps of skin removed from her abdomen, and the placenta and cord.

[Debra A]

Haha. Very funnny. I don't think the ripper had a dictionary in one hand Sam.

The external organs of generation were mutilated in the case of Elizabeth Jackson, Rocky. Removed with flaps of skin from the abdomen and part of the right buttock in the same way Mary Kelly's were.

[John G]

Elizabeth Jackson's uterus was removed and parceled up with the flaps of skin removed from her abdomen, and the placenta and cord.

But it wasn't removed from the crime scene, unlike Chapman, Eddowes. Neither was the kidney removed, unlike Eddowes.

[John G]

Hi all

There is a question of whether or not Hebbert himself thought the Whitechapel and torso victims were the work of JTR. In a Boston newspaper article about an American child murderer, located by Robert Linford, comments on the killer's [Gilbert] state of mind and possible insanity are made by Dr Hebbert who was working in Boston at the time. He compares Gilbert's crime to the 'sexual mania' shown in the 'Whitechapel crimes of Jack the Ripper' and claims to have seen six of those victims. Here's a transcript of Hebbert's comments from the article linked to above:

SAYS HE IS INSANE
Dr Charles A. Hebbert, when interviewed on the subject, [of Gilbert] said:
"I can conceive that that if the man was in a certain epileptic condition that he did not know what he had done until after it was over. "

"It did not appear to me to be a case of sexual mania. The body was mutilated in an entirely different way from murders of that kind. I saw six of the Whitchapel victims of Jack the Ripper. I am somewhat acquainted with crimes of that sort in countries other than England and I can say that those cases, without exception, were totally different from this case. "

While Dr Hebbert would not , in any way criticise anything that occurred during the trial, he admitted that he thought the family history of the prisoner was not considered sufficiently. A man who comes of a family in which there are two insane relatives, two idiots- a man whose father and grandfather were drunkards is able to inherit an insane temperament. The tendency to insanity in such cases is recognised by insurance companies who are very careful about taking risks of that sort.

Dr Hebbert stated very positively that he thinks a case of this sort calls for close examination for some period of time and that it was not possible to pass upon it correctly in the short time the man was under medical examination.
"I don't think the man ought ever to be at large again,"concluded Dr. Hebbert. "It is now a question whether he had better be treated by the discipline of an asylum or prison."

Dr Hebbert was connected for some time with the epilepsy Hospital in St. Johns Wood, London and with the Bethlehem Royal Hospital, the greatest lunacy hospital in the world. By reason of his experience and capacity he is regarded as a high authority on insanity.

Which six victims did Hebbert see? We know he was present with Dr Bond at the Miller's Court murder and also saw Mylett's autopsy (although she was not mutilated). Rob Clack suggested McKenzie, as Bond saw her body. Hebbert definitely saw and did post mortems on the four 'torso' victims- 87-89, which he suggested were all dismembered by the same person. Was he including those in his tally?
I suppose seeing the photographs of Catherine Eddowes' mutilations would count as 'seeing' what had been done mutilation-wise.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=23467&page=2

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=90

Only one of the Torso victims was associated with "Whitechapel" and could therefore be reasonably described as a "Whitechapel victim", I.e the Pinchin Street Torso. And we know that Dr Phillips most definitely did not consider this to be a Whitechapel victim" of JtR.

[Debra A]

Only one of the Torso victims was associated with "Whitechapel" and could therefore be reasonably described as a "Whitechapel victim", I.e the Pinchin Street Torso. And we know that Dr Phillips most definitely did not consider this to be a Whitechapel victim" of JtR.

I am simply putting up Dr Hebbert's quoted comments on the cases for discussion and asking which 'Whitechapel' victims he meant. This was in a US newspaper where the exact locations JTR operated in meant little. In the US published 'System of Legal Medicine' the torso cases, notes of which were provided by Hebbert and Bond, were described as 'Whitechapel' cases too. This is why I think Hebbert may have been referring to them in the article too.

[John G]

I am simply putting up Dr Hebbert's quoted comments on the cases for discussion and asking which 'Whitechapel' victims he meant. This was in a US newspaper where the exact locations JTR operated in meant little. In the US published 'System of Legal Medicine' the torso cases, notes of which were provided by Hebbert and Bond, were described as 'Whitechapel' cases too. This is why I think Hebbert may have been referring to them in the article too.

Thanks Debra. Wasn't Dr Bond asked to review all of the "Whitechapel Murders", which resulted in his famous profile? And isn't there suspicion that the Bond Report that ensued was actually written by his assistant, Dr Hebbert? Could this be what Hebbert was referring to?

[Debra A]

But it wasn't removed from the crime scene, unlike Chapman, Eddowes. Neither was the kidney removed, unlike Eddowes.

You mean it wasn't retained? Neither was MJk's uterus but it was removed. The heart was never recovered in Elizabeth Jackson's case, he may have retained that? How can you be so certain the heads were retained in the torso cases?

[Debra A]

Thanks Debra. Wasn't Dr Bond asked to review all of the "Whitechapel Murders", which resulted in his famous profile? And isn't there suspicion that the Bond Report that ensued was actually written by his assistant, Dr Hebbert? Could this be what Hebbert was referring to?

Yes, but Hebbert specifically talks of the 'mutilations' on the cases he has viewed. We know he was at Miller's Court with Bond (probably writing for Bond while Bond worked with Philips), and we know there were photographs taken of Eddowes mutilations but Hebbert wouldn't have seen any of the other victims' mutilations in person or in a photograph. if Hebert is including the torso cases then he apparently also thought the torso cases were done by someone suffering from 'sexual mania', as he called it.
I think it's interesting and relevant if he did.

[John G]

You mean it wasn't retained? Neither was MJk's uterus but it was removed. The heart was never recovered in Elizabeth Jackson's case, he may have retained that? How can you be so certain the heads were retained in the torso cases?

I think it's a reasonable inference that a more organised Torso Murderer prevented discovery of the heads in order to ensure that his victims were not identified. A less organized JtR took no such precautions.