The Whitehall Mystery

[John G]

Hi JohnG
thanks for responding! However, I noticed you didn't respond to these queries from me. If you could answer these for me it would be much appreciated.


Whats the sig of the ripper?
whats the sig of torsoman?


whats the distinct progression in sig of the ripper?
Whats the distinct progression in sig of torsoman?

Hello Abby,

JtR's signature, according to Keppel: picquerism; overkill; completely and immediately incapacitating the victim, i.e. via multiple stab wounds, mutilations, near severing of the head; leaving the victims in open display, to degrade them and for shock value; posing; gradual escalation of violence, i.e. post mortem mutilations-focusing on the breasts, genetelia, abdomen and neck.

Torso killer: dismemberment and decapitation. Leaves body parts in unusual or public places, arguably for shock value. There is some evidence that, in the case of Liz Jackson, he progressed to harvesting organs, however as I believe Dr Bond pointed out, they were not the same body parts that JtR harvested: in Jackson's case both the uterus and kidneys were found, although I believe the heart and lungs were missing. Moreover, it's possible body parts were lost during the disposal process, or disposed of elsewhere and not found. There were mutilations in the torso cases, however Drs Hebbert and Phillips seemed to believe this occurred as a consequence of disposing of or dismembering the body.

Of course, signatures can evolve or become more elaborate, but I am not aware of a single example of where a serial killer has alternated between two different signatures. It is also worth noting that "signature characteristics remain stable and reflect the nature of offender." (Keppel, 2005). It is therefore unlikely that there would be evidence of a change in signature characteristics simply because the killer had temporarily lost access to his dismemberment site.

A perfect example of the very different signatures and MOs of JtR and the Torso killer, is the last Torso case, the Pinchin Street Torso. Thus, firstly, unlike the C5 victims, the Pinchin Street Torso was dismembered and decapitated.

Secondly, in the Pinchin Street case a dump site was used: the victim was not killed close to where the body was found. Unlike JtR's murders, where the body of the victim was simply left where the murder took place.

Thirdly, as Donald Swanson pointed out there was no mutilation of the genitals, unlike the Whitechapel murders, which is significant because, as Keppel pointed out, this seemed to form part of JtR's signature.

Fourthly, all of the C5 victims without exception were murdered by having their throat cut. However, that doesn't appear to be the case with the Pinchin Torso: thus Keppel (2005), citing Evans and Skinner (2000), "The trunk was full of blood indicating that a hemorrhage had not occurred. This also indicated the throat could not have been cut." Interestingly, the earlier Battersea Torso victim (1873) was possibly killed by being struck on the head with a blunt instrument: in that case the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder by person or persons unknown.

There was evidence of mutilation in the Pinchin Street case, however Dr Phillips' believed "they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body." There was also a gash on the abdomen, "but this appeared to have been inflicted when the dismemberment had taken place." (Evans and Rumbellow, 2006)

There has been some talk of "experts" on this thread recently. However, I am not aware of a single respected Ripperology author who has ever attempted to connect any of the torso crimes to those of JtR. In fact, the only author who has attempted to do so is Michael Gordon, who attributed all of the murders to George Chapman! Mind you, not sure if he qualifies as an expert!

Perhaps I should finish by quoting the wise words of two undoubted experts, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbellow: "On Tuesday 10 September 1889 unidentified female remains were found under a railway arch. This case bore no resemblance to a Ripper killing. On the contrary, it appeared that the murderer had cut up a body to prevent its identification and then dumped it away from the scene of his crime." (Evans and Rumbellow, 2006)

[John G]

Only the torso killer identified by Trow was operating London-wide, surely?
The torso killer identified by Hebbert was dumping around the Thames embankment and Whitechapel?

Only one Torso victim was found in Whitechapel, and we have no idea where she was murdered. And, as I've pointed out in my reply to Abby, there is evidence that she was not killed by having her throat cut, unlike the C5; no genital mutilations, unlike the Whitechapel murders; body dismembered, unlike the Whitechapel murders; mutilations, according to Dr Phillips, probably made for the purpose of disposing of the body, unlike the Whitechapel murders...

[John G]

Hi John,
I was saying I couldn't accept what Trow wrote without question anymore. I was referring to his track record research-wise with high class victims, the girl with the rose tattoo, the Pinchin St torso placed 'between' two drunks, Elizabeth Jackson's father being dead, Faircloth having served his time' in the army' and numerous other 'facts' in the book that are incorrect. Although the book is well written the research doesn't appear to be very thorough.

With Elizabeth Jackson we know no abortion had been performed, Hebbert and Bond detail why they conclude this in their report, we also know her body was dumped only 2 days after death at most, not enough time to die from peritonitis. I have never denied it may be the case with the Whitehall case, we just can't know.
The Pinchin St and Rainham cases involved victims who were definitely not pregnant. Trevor's abortion scenario therefore doesn't fit with those well documented cases 87-89. We know much less about the Tottenham case. Women did die of peritonitis while staying at the homes of abortionists too, there are several documented cases. Do we know this didn't happen in the Tottenham case?

Hello Debra,

Yes, it does seem that Jackson was murdered. However, why do you think Dr Biggs made the following comments?: " The fact that one of the bodies had been pregnant certainly raises the possibility of complications of attempted abortion or other back street obstetric procedure." (Marriott, 2015)

[jerryd]

Dennis Lynch

The last post of this thread might be of interest to jerry...another case of a man selling a fake story by using the name lynch:

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/10776.html

Thanks for that Rocky,

It's funny you mention Lynch as I spent most of the last week looking more into him. One news clipping I found on him has some nice details that I followed up on.

Lynch worked for a Mr. Matley (Mapley) who was a greengrocer on Newcastle Street near Strand. In fact it is around the corner from White Horse Yard where Dennis Lynch at one time lived under the alias of John Leary. When Donald Swanson investigated Lynch in the search for John Arnold he stated that the name Cleary was possibly confused with Leary by the initial flourish when writing the letter 'L'. Also interesting to note, if John Arnold used the false name of John Cleary and an address of 21 Whitehorse Yard and Dennis Lynch recently lived at 21 Whitehorse Yard under the alias of John Leary, why the police didn't attach any importance to it and released Lynch without cause because he didn't fit the description of the man calling on The Herald office. It seems clear to me Arnold knew Lynch and an 1881 census has a John Arnold living at 4, Whitehorse Yard with his wife and children.

Another point of interest in the news clipping is Mr. Matley said he dealt in coal and vegetables but did odd jobs for W.H. Smith and Co. Matley took care of the greengrocer business but since he had a horse and cart he employed a man to do the odd jobs for W.H. Smith. This man was Dennis Lynch and he had worked for Matley for 10 years. In researching any people by that name I came across a W.H. Smith and Son that years back had monopolized on the growing railway industry. They began selling newspapers and other publications at main railway stations in the form of bookstalls. Their first bookstall in London was at the Euston Station just across the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Euston Road. By 1889 they would have had bookstalls at almost every main station in London. If this is the same company that Matley had Dennis Lynch doing odd jobs for, it has significant implications in regard to the torsos, in my opinion. It would also make sense why John Arnold may have had contact with him. John Arnold was a news vendor, after all.

Matley's shop on Newcastle was a few blocks north of the embankment. In fact heading south on Newcastle would have put you on the embankment between two piers, the Waterloo Pier and the Temple Pier. Torso parts were found at both places. Also there is a station on the district railway line near Temple pier. If Lynch were to travel to Euston Station in a horse and cart, one route that makes sense from Matley's is up Drury Lane and over to Tottenham Court Road and then up to the station. Kings Cross station is a bit further east from Euston station and has access to Regents Canal. Body parts dumped here could eventually end up in the Limehouse Basin and then into the Thames.

One last thing in the article, when Swanson showed up looking for Lynch at Matley's, Mr. Matley said Lynch was doing a job up Kennington Lane. Kennington Lane was on the south side of the River near Vauxhall. From Matley's the quickest way across the Thames is the Waterloo Bridge. Just across the Bridge on the south side of the Thames at Lambeth Road is the asylum for the blind. Most likely the location the boy found the body part (arm?) and notified the police.

Dennis Lynch moved a lot in a short time. He lived at 5, Strand Buildings where Swanson found him to be living with another man's wife. I had always believed these buildings to be near Savoy Buildings. I have found reference to Strand Buildings at Kings College near Matleys but I'm not sure yet if this is where he was living. He also lived at Bears Court which I think may be Bear Yard, again in the same vicinity. And then at Eversleigh Buildings, which I believe to be near Battersea Park.

There is more on Lynch, such as the King Lud Pub, but I have already strayed off topic and I apologize. Just wanted to address Rocky.

P.S There was a coal depot at Midland Railway station which was just north of Kings Cross station. Regents canal separated the two. Could Matley have gotten his coal from the railway yards?

[John G]

Sleeping drunks

PC Pennett, from the Pinchin Street inquest: "I made a search and found two men; apparently sailors, asleep in the last arch. They were a short distance apart. They were the farthest of the three arches from Backchurch-Lane. In the middle arch there was a shoeblack lying on the stones. He was asleep, and I woke him up. Only one of the sailors was asleep."

Inspector Pinchorn: "The men who were found in the other two arches would have to pass the one in which the body was found. The front of the arches near Pinchin Street where the men were found was some 30 yards from the spot where the body was found by the constable."

Inspector Reid: "I have interrogated the three men myself and have no doubt they were drunk when they entered the arch."

This might also be interesting:

PC Pennett: "There was also a carriage entrance to the arch from Backchurch Lane."

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,

Yes, it does seem that Jackson was murdered. However, why do you think Dr Biggs made the following comments?: " The fact that one of the bodies had been pregnant certainly raises the possibility of complications of attempted abortion or other back street obstetric procedure." (Marriott, 2015)

Simply because Trevor asked him whether it was a possibility I suspect, John.
Trevor simply passed on Hebbert and Bond's notes that i sent to him, plus he culled a certain snippet of information about the 'plugging' in Elizabeth's case that I'd discovered a few years back because it possibly supports an abortion scenario as suggested by me at the time but Dr Biggs can't possibly have been going by any evidence missed by Hebbert and Bond, he was reading their notes! Sent by me.

What seems to be difficult for some to understand is that until the moment of her death, however it occured, Elizabeth was still pregnant and no violence or instruments had been used to effect abortion, as the doctors carefully noted by the condition of the cervix, vagina etc. They were all as they should be, so there was no reason for anyone to dismember and dump Elizabeth's body to hide the evidence of abortion...because there was none.

BUT -One possibility is that Elizabeth was poisoned in the course of trying to bring on a miscarriage, I proposed this a long time ago and several times in the thread and Trevor has taken it up too now. In that case her body may have been dismembered and organs removed to hide that fact but she certainly wouldn't have been butchered during the course of an abortion involving abdominal surgery in the way Trevor tried to suggest.

Hebbert and Bond knew what an abortion was and how it was performed. Bond himself helped to put away several criminal abortionists in his career.
I take exception to the idea that Dr Biggs would know any better than them.

[jerryd]

Hi JohnG,

The shoeblack (Michael Keating) I have always found interesting. He was said to have lived at 1 Osborne Street, Brick lane. Also, at one time living at that address in 1888 was the pensioner, Stanley, in the Chapman case. Stanley was informed by a shoeblack of the murder of Annie Chapman.

Just another of the many coincidences in all these cases.

[Fisherman]

John G!

Just two snippets from your lengthy post nr 841:

1. "...all of the C5 victims without exception were murdered by having their throat cut."

You sometimes have an unhealthy habit of firing first and asking afterwards. It is well known that there were signs of strangulation in more than one case, and Llewellyn opted for the abdominal wounds having been inflicted before the cut neck in the Nichols case.

Simplification in all honour, but let´s not forget about the facts!

2. "Perhaps I should finish by quoting the wise words of two undoubted experts, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbellow: "On Tuesday 10 September 1889 unidentified female remains were found under a railway arch. This case bore no resemblance to a Ripper killing."

A word of advice: do not rely too heavily on authorities. They differ inbetween themselves, and you can always find authorities that do not support bits that other authorities do.
In this case, we have the almighty resemblance of the torso having had it´s abdomen cut open - a VERY common Ripper trait.
So which is it? Were there resemblances or were there not?
We should decide matters for ourselves, I think.

[John G]

Simply because Trevor asked him whether it was a possibility I suspect, John.
Trevor simply passed on Hebbert and Bond's notes that i sent to him, plus he culled a certain snippet of information about the 'plugging' in Elizabeth's case that I'd discovered a few years back because it possibly supports an abortion scenario as suggested by me at the time but Dr Biggs can't possibly have been going by any evidence missed by Hebbert and Bond, he was reading their notes! Sent by me.

What seems to be difficult for some to understand is that until the moment of her death, however it occured, Elizabeth was still pregnant and no violence or instruments had been used to effect abortion, as the doctors carefully noted by the condition of the cervix, vagina etc. They were all as they should be, so there was no reason for anyone to dismember and dump Elizabeth's body to hide the evidence of abortion...because there was none.

BUT -One possibility is that Elizabeth was poisoned in the course of trying to bring on a miscarriage, I proposed this a long time ago and several times in the thread and Trevor has taken it up too now. In that case her body may have been dismembered and organs removed to hide that fact but she certainly wouldn't have been butchered during the course of an abortion involving abdominal surgery in the way Trevor tried to suggest.

Hebbert and Bond knew what an abortion was and how it was performed. Bond himself helped to put away several criminal abortionists in his career.
I take exception to the idea that Dr Biggs would know any better than them.

Hello Debra,

Thank you, excellent reply. I agree with your comments regarding Dr Biggs. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain his reasoning for the proportion that Jackson was killed in order to cover up an abortion, leading one to speculate as to whether this was an informed opinion, or simply based on the fact of that she was pregnant. Dr Biggs, in my opinion, does make some excellent observations in relation to the Whitechapel murders. However, with respect to Trevor and Dr Biggs, it needs to be borne in mind that this was not a peer reviewed journal article, which I believe is the same point that was made about Dr L's conclusions reported in Russell Edwards' book.

[John G]

P

John G!

Just two snippets from your lengthy post nr 841:

1. "...all of the C5 victims without exception were murdered by having their throat cut."

You sometimes have an unhealthy habit of firing first and asking afterwards. It is well known that there were signs of strangulation in more than one case, and Llewellyn opted for the abdominal wounds having been inflicted before the cut neck in the Nichols case.

Simplification in all honour, but let´s not forget about the facts!

2. "Perhaps I should finish by quoting the wise words of two undoubted experts, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbellow: "On Tuesday 10 September 1889 unidentified female remains were found under a railway arch. This case bore no resemblance to a Ripper killing."

A word of advice: do not rely too heavily on authorities. They differ inbetween themselves, and you can always find authorities that do not support bits that other authorities do.
In this case, we have the almighty resemblance of the torso having had it´s abdomen cut open - a VERY common Ripper trait.
So which is it? Were there resemblances or were there not?
We should decide matters for ourselves, I think.

Hello Fisherman,

Yes, I agree that we should keep an open mind, however, a lot of people on this thread seemed to be convinced that the Torso killer and JtR were one and the same, so my main mission has been to balance the arguments!

I am intrigued by Debra's observation that the mutilations inflicted on Liz Jackson were similar to Kelly's. However, Debra has also pointed out that Jackson could have been poisoned in the course of trying to bring on a miscarriage. Of course, in many other respects Kelly doesn't resemble a Torso murder, but she doesn't really resemble a Whitechapel murder either.

Regarding, the mutilation of the torso victims, Dr Phillips and Dr Hebbert seemed to be of the opinion that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body , I.e "the easy carriage of the parts". Of course, JtR mutilated for a very different purpose.

Could a single killer have progressed from genital mutilations to dismemberment? Schlesinger (2010) refer to a killer who progressed from post mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment, so eliminate from the series all of the dismemberment cases apart from Jackson and Pinchin Street, and it wouldn't be unprecedented. However, considering the other major differences I consider it unlikely.

[John G]

Hi JohnG,

The shoeblack (Michael Keating) I have always found interesting. He was said to have lived at 1 Osborne Street, Brick lane. Also, at one time living at that address in 1888 was the pensioner, Stanley, in the Chapman case. Stanley was informed by a shoeblack of the murder of Annie Chapman.

Just another of the many coincidences in all these cases.

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for this. There are certainly a lot of "coincidences". Tom Westcott, in the Bank Holiday Murders, refers to Horsnell, Tabram, Smith and Hames. They were all neighbours, and either murdered or subjected to violent attacks: Smith and Hames were both attacked by a gang on the same day.

[jerryd]

P

Hello Fisherman,

Yes, I agree that we should keep an open mind, however, a lot of people on this thread seemed to be convinced that the Torso killer and JtR were one and the same, so my main mission has been to balance the arguments!

I am intrigued by Debra's observation that the mutilations inflicted on Liz Jackson were similar to Kelly's. However, Debra has also pointed out that Jackson could have been poisoned in the course of trying to bring on a miscarriage. Of course, in many other respects Kelly doesn't resemble a Torso murder, but she doesn't really resemble a Whitechapel murder either.

Regarding, the mutilation of the torso victims, Dr Phillips and Dr Hebbert seemed to be of the opinion that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body , I.e "the easy carriage of the parts". Of course, JtR mutilated for a very different purpose.

Could a single killer have progressed from genital mutilations to dismemberment? Schlesinger (2010) refer to a killer who progressed from post mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment, so eliminate from the series all of the dismemberment cases apart from Jackson and Pinchin Street, and it wouldn't be unprecedented. However, considering the other major differences I consider it unlikely.

John,

I know you addressed Fisherman but I wanted to clear something up. You ask "Could a single killer have progressed from genital mutilations to dismemberment? " Isn't it the other way around? Most of the torso's came before the Whitechapel murders.

[Harry D]

Were they operating in the same area? The Torso killer operated London-wide; JtR only in Whitechapel and the surrounding area. Did they operate during the same time period? JtR was active during 1888; the Torso killer possibly between 1873 and 1889. Did they use the same technique? It seems to me the only real evidence for this is a comparison of Jackson and Kelly. However, Kelly's body was so badly damaged, in a frenzied attack, it's difficult to tell: certainly the degree of skill exhibited is radically diffetent. It's also possible that she was the victim of a back street medical procedure. And the Pinchin Street murder was radically different to any of the Whitechapel murders attributed to JtR. Both killers used different signatures. Can you give any examples of where any serial killer has see-sawed between two different signatures?

But there was overlap, John. Two serial killers butchering women at the same time, in the same location (London), is, in itself, quite extraordinary, and leaves open the possibility of them being the same man. Is not possible that the signatures would vary depending on mood and circumstance? We've seen that the Ripper was capricious within his own series, e.g. the facial injuries on Eddowes being quite unlike anything else he did.

[jerryd]

Which by the way kind of fits if you ask me. If a killer was use to dismembering victims and stopped. He would escalate toward that again, would he not? Mary Kelly being very close to dismembered and, of course, the Pinchin torso.

The Whitehall torso victim was most likely killed in late August. Then, depending on what one believes, Tabram in August and so on.

[Dane_F]

Whoa! That's all I can say after I spent the past 4 days reading through this entire thread. This has to be one of the most interested threads I've ever read here on casebook.

I came into this thread of the opinion that the torso murders (even if involuntary or accidentally through medical procedure is still murder in my eyes) were some random happenstance and really had no connection to JTR at all.

After reading through 85 pages I have to admit there was some VERY interesting information provided. The similarities between Kelly and Jackson are shocking. To the point that the actual wounds might match more between those two than to Kelly and any of the possible Ripper victims. Even if we assume that the genital mutilations being very, very similar were some weird happenstance there is still the issue of the chest being opened and the hearts removed and missed.

I find it very hard to argue for the extend of the mutilations on Jackson being with the goal of removing organs to hide evidence of poisoning. Why were only some organs removed but not others? If the answer is the organs fell out in transport then that means the killers goal was not to hide the organs and they were simply lost - which goes against poisoning and accidental death. Why was the exterior "organs of generation" touched at all? You certainly wouldn't need to cut down that far to have access to all the organs you'd want to remove.

I also think it's a mistake to try and classify these "mysteries" as such simply off of a medical examiners testimony. What he can do is stay they are inconclusive based off of the medical evidence. But medical evidence is not the only basis we have for determining murder. We also have the disposing of the body and the locations. So, while the medical evidence alone is inconclusive, I think when you combine it with the other evidence there gives credence to a good number of the Torso's being actual murders.

Where it becomes confusing and much tougher is trying to determine which torsos are linked to which, which JTR murders are linked to which torsos, and so forth. There was also some very interesting veins of conversation about sewer systems and underground passages that really should be explored in more detail. Fascinating stuff, especially with possible links to JTR murders.

I just want to say thank you to the posters for making such an amazing thread to read over. i really hope this thread doesn't get bogged down in rhetoric and we lose out on the valuable veins of conversation found here.